CPRE Leicestershire

The Leicestershire Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England

Formerly the Council for the Protection of Rural England

Proposed 'Pennbury' Ecotown

Update - April 17th, 2008.

As you will be aware by now, the proposal for an 'eco-town' on the site of the Co-Op's Stoughton Farms Estate to the south-east of Leicester, has been included in the Government's short list of fifteen such proposals in England. To say that we were surprised by the inclusion of Pennbury is an understatement as it has so many unsustainable features it really should figure as an exemplar of what an eco-town should not be!

Perhaps the most obvious negative feature of this ridiculous proposal is the lack of trunk road and motorway infrastructure on the south-eastern side of Leicester. Anyone travelling to and from the City in the tidal commuter traffic flows know only too well how bad the road congestion is and how rapidly it has increased over recent years. The applicant may well propose providing new road infrastructure and park-and-ride facilities though all this will do is feed traffic into the existing bottlenecks. There are also considerable hurdles to clear regarding surface water run-off containment and flood risk.

These questions and many others await explanation from the applicant. This is an irregular situation since the Government's consultation on the eco-town short list began in the second week of April. So, how can we be consulted about something we know nothing about? At the time of writing we are into the second week of the twelve-week consultation period, twelve weeks being the minimum period required for Government consultations, as per binding Cabinet Office guidelines.

Leicestershire CPRE has challenged the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) over the validity of this so-called consultation. So far, they have referred us to the applicant (the Co-Op) for details about 'Pennbury'. On April 15th the Co-Op Ecotown Team contacted Leicestershire CPRE to say that their 'website will be going live any day now'. Quoting from the rest of their reply: 'We would also be delighted to meet with a delegation from your CPRE branch when the consultation process in Leicestershire is launched and you have had a chance to look over our emerging plans. To be clear, we have no blueprint or plans for the Eco Town as yet. These will be developed over time and through the consultation process we are entering into over the coming weeks.' The DCLG have indicated that they will not alter the closing date for this consultation.

This is staggering, to say the least. We have until June 30th to analyse in detail a very complex situation. We are told that no plans exist for 'Pennbury' and this naturally begs the question 'What did the Co-Op present to the Government's DCLG to convince them of a case strong enough to be short-listed?' The whole business arouses many suspicions. Other eco-town proposals in the short-list have been supported by detailed Master Plans for the benefit of consultees and to that extent they have an unfair advantage over us.

Having spent time over three weekends walking the area over which 'Pennbury' might be built fills me with sadness and dismay - and anger. Quite apart from being fifteen hundred acres of valuable and productive agricultural land it is a beautiful tract of countryside, uniquely East Leicestershire in character. The topography is essentially a dome, rising to 140 metres (460 feet) above sea-level. At the apex of this dome is the plateau on which sits Leicester Aero Club, occupying the site of a World War II aerodrome. Little of the old WWII runways and perimeter tracks are used today. In fact the three asphalted runways used by the Aero Club cover an area of just under forty-six thousand square metres. Why is this detail important? The answer is that under changes made to Planning Policy a couple of years ago, aerodromes and hospital grounds were deemed to be 'brownfield' sites.

Leicester Airport is described as a brownfield site, yet the active asphalt surfaced runways constitute a mere 0.6% of the area proposed for ecotown development. The whole of the airfield's 'hard' structures (control tower, hangars and WWII concrete) comprise just over 3% of the proposed development site. The whole airfield, enclosed by the perimeter track and mostly grass and cultivated crops, amounts to a hundred hectares, which is 13% of the proposed development site. However, the new rules on brownfield definition state that a site is brownfield right up to the boundary, regardless of any greenery. This is sheer planning nonsense because the land enclosed by the airfield's perimeter track is farmed right up to the runway edges, with the exception of some grass strips. This 'brownfield' deception is being used to push 'Pennbury' forward...

Ecotowns are meant to be self-contained sustainable communities where the need for travel is minimised. Like a pre-industrial village or town everything needed is intended to be on-hand within the confines of the settlement. Envisaging an eco-town as some kind of gated community or open prison is completely unrealistic. Even vehicle ownership will not be encouraged within these Utopias. Reducing the need to travel is a sustainable ambition; why then has a railway link from Pennbury to the London main line been mentioned? Is this an admission that 'Pennbury' will really serve as a dormitory town for London commuters?

Pennbury protest marchers turn out in all weathers

A lot has also been made of ecotowns in relation to affordable housing provision. The additional cost of constructing a near-zero carbon home is significant and it is difficult to see how funding can be raised by housing associations, or even a mortgage seeker, given the present economic climate. If eco-towns are all inclusive, provision for itinerant people is an expectation too.

The current economic difficulties are perhaps the tip of an iceberg, given the diminishing global supply of oil and gas. We are now in an era where cheap fuel and cheap food are in the past. Wasting productive agricultural land, as the 'Pennbury' proposal will do, is criminal profligacy. The UK imports around 40% of its food and the irreversible loss of our countryside is going to end in tears.

The planning background to the provision of new homes within the Region is also questionable. The recent work carried out by proper consultation for the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) determined the need for new homes within the 'Three Cities Sub-Region' (i.e. the triangle formed by Nottingham, Derby and Leicester). This process has been rigorous, thorough and fair. On top of what some might consider to be an astronomical number of new homes for the sub-region the Government has dumped more homes without any fair assessment of need, such as the RSS process. In fact, the figures determined by the RSS could well be overturned by the Government and even more new homes added! Pennbury itself is envisaged as a community consisting of 12,000 to 15,000 new homes.

The church of St. Giles standing in the fields of the deserted Mediaeval village of Stretton Magna. If permitted, 'Pennbury' will swamp delightful assets such as this

The developer for the proposed ecotown of Pennbury is trying to convince us that Leicester will have an asset to be proud of. It is disappointing that a company well-known for its ethical stance on several important issues is trying to sell us a puppy and is ignoring the importance of countryside with its economic, natural and historic heritage. The Government's own advice in its Planning Policy Statement 7 states that '...the Government's overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all.'

Ecotowns could well deprive regeneration programmes taking place in principal urban areas of badly needed funding. Leicester's next phase of regeneration will take place on the northern and western fringes of the city. Will these 'Sustainable Urban Extensions' conform to the same low-carbon standards as ecotowns? The method of delivery for these new homes also raises many questions. While we are told that the existing planning system may initiate the first phases of development, it looks likely that either the New Towns Act and/or new legislation currently passing through Parliament will bypass local planning democracy. The Government is acting as judge, jury and hangman.

Graham Stocks
Leicestershire Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)
Registered Charity Number 258151
PO Box 7986
Loughborough
LE12 8XT

www.cpreleics.org
http://www.cpreleics.org/local-campaigns/pennbury-eco-town.shtml

Signed up yet? Spread the word!
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/PennburyEcoTown/

The 'Pennbury' Eco-Town Proposal - the (Un)democratic Process

At the time of writing (January 18th, 2008) the proposal for a standalone New Town to the south-eastern side of Leicester is one of nearly sixty applications submitted to the Government. It is understood that ten so-called 'eco-towns' would be accepted from this list and an announcement was originally expected in February 2008, though March now looks more likely.

The process by which the Government will select the lucky winners merits close scrutiny. Currently under discussion in Parliament is the Housing and Regeneration Bill. This Bill will 'support the delivery of three million new homes by 2020' by setting up a new Homes and Communities Agency, which was announced in the 2007 Queen's Speech. This top-down primary legislation is a great cause for concern.

By way of a preamble to the problems posed by 'Pennbury' we need to consider the existing strategic planning framework. The East Midlands Regional Plan has just gone through the process of an Examination in Public to consider the Draft Regional Plan, known as the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the East Midlands. Within that plan structure is the 'Three Cities Sub-Area' of which Leicester is a part, the other two being Derby and Nottingham. The RSS calls for 79,940 dwellings in Leicester and Leicestershire to be delivered between 2006-2026, at the rate of 4,000 per year.

Now a word of caution: the West Midlands Region has undergone similar strategic planning discussions and it looks likely that the whole process will be upset by Government intervention. The West Midlands Regional Assembly proposed a total of 365,000 new homes for the 20-year plan period - a number that West Midlands CPRE contested. West Midlands CPRE arrived at a figure of 285,000 homes after analysing the requirement for concentrating new development in the right places and on proven need. In the event, the Regional Assembly rejected CPRE's analysis of need and stuck to their original proposal of 365,000 new homes. Here's the bit where you need to sit up and pay attention: the Government has rejected the Regional Assembly's projection for 365,000 new homes and is seeking to increase that figure to 420,000 new dwellings.

By what process can the government override what are largely democratic outcomes at the regional level? On May 13th 2004 the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill received Royal Assent. This was the Act that enabled the restructuring of planning at the local level, setting up Local Development Frameworks, etc. The Act meant that County Structure Plans for example would be no longer the way forward and any Structure Plans in existence would be 'saved' up to the end of their plan period. Within the 2004 Act there is a tiny section that most of us perhaps let slip by. It is in Part 1, Section 9, paragraph 5. This states:

'If the Secretary of State thinks it necessary or expedient to do so he may at any time revoke (a) an RSS (b) such parts of an RSS as he thinks appropriate'

This potentially erodes democracy very seriously indeed and it is possible that what is happening in the West Midlands could easily happen here and thus facilitate 'driving forward new housing provision' in the form of Pennbury New Town.

There are at present two other planning Bills going through Parliament. One is the Planning Reform Bill and the other is the Housing and Regeneration Bill and both take the erosion of our democratic rights to comment on planning issues a step further forward. Euphemistically, the Government wish us to see these proposals as means whereby the planning process is speeded-up.

The Planning Reform Bill, which isn't directly relevant to the 'Pennbury' proposal, seeks to establish an 'Infrastructure Planning Commission', to be comprised of independent and impartial experts acting on behalf of the ordinary citizen. The major infrastructure provisions are construction or extensions to airports, harbours, power-generating plant, hazardous waste disposal facilities and other such 'nationally significant infrastructure projects'.

The second Bill, the Housing and Regeneration Bill, is of great significance where the 'Pennbury' proposal is concerned. If anyone is in doubt that this will be the means of delivery for 'Pennbury' or any other new town, whether under the appellation of 'eco' or not, see Hansard for January 10th 2008.

That is, the vast scale of increased house building demanded by the Government, will not be delivered by the normal planning processes.

As with the proposal for the Planning Reform Bill to establish a Commission to act on behalf of the ordinary citizen, the Housing and Regeneration Bill seeks to set up a 'Homes and Communities Agency'. This new Agency will bring together the functions of the Government's Regeneration Agency, the Housing Corporation and, interestingly, English Partnerships. It is English Partnerships who own a small part of the land in question earmarked for 'Pennbury' (Stretton Hall near Great Glen).

Much of what has been described above regarding central planning powers comes from the 2006 Barker Report. Kate Barker's Review of Planning saw challenges in very simplistic ways, which reflects the thinking of the author's background in economics. For example, Barker argued that since approximately 'only' 11% of Britain is built-up the rest is ripe for further development and encroachment onto countryside is not a problem. CPRE members will have seen the new Intrusion Maps.

Leicestershire has lost half the tranquillity it had in the 1960s. Those pushing for new development talk of the 'footprint' of new growth. What they omit to reveal is that the intrusive effect of roads and urban growth is four to five times the extent of this footprint. This is clearly revealed in our Intrusion Maps and furthermore illustrates without any shadow of doubt that 50% of England is so disturbed by the sights and sounds of urbanisation that our countryside no longer has a rural feel to it.

The Intrusion Maps should be viewed in conjunction with the CPRE Tranquillity and Light Pollution maps.

CPRE's Intrusion Maps were fed into the Government's debate on the Planning White Paper, the Planning Reform Bill and the Housing and Regeneration Bill. These new regimes will deny peoples' rights to have a real say and there will be a presumption to go ahead with projects if they comply with proposed National Policy Statements.

Currently, another consultation is about to take place on Regional Economies. This is based on the Government's 'Review of Sub-National Economic Development and Regeneration'. If we are not careful, the too-narrow focus on economic targets will override sustainable development. The proposed transfer of planning responsibilities to Regional Development Agencies further reduces democratic accountability and engagement with NGO stakeholders, such as CPRE.

At the 2006 Branch AGM Sir Max Hastings warned Leicestershire CPRE members and friends that the Government simply wasn't listening to anything other than economic arguments. Those lobbying for environmental protection and improvement, whether deemed to be 'key stakeholders' or not, just aren't getting a proper hearing. As an example, 32,100 individual responses were made to the Planning White Paper in the Summer of 2007 and in spite of these few significant changes were made to the original proposals. Of the 32,100 responses 31,000 came from supporters of coalition organisations. This coalition comprised CPRE, CPRW, Airportwatch, The Civic Trust, Friends of the Earth, the Grasslands Trust, the Council for National Parks, the National Trust, RSPB, The Ramblers Association, the Campaign for Better Transport (previously Transport2000) enoughsenough, UKRIGS, the Wildlife Trusts and the Woodland Trust. This coalition represents more than five million people and yet the Government ignored 97% of the respondents to the Planning White Paper consultation. No detailed response was forthcoming, as has happened with other consultations and there was no impact on Ministers' original plans!

So, what bearing does this lack of full democratic process have on the 'Pennbury' proposal? It is a common misconception that there is Green Belt protection in our county. There is in fact no Green Belt at all in Leicestershire and previous attempts to legislate for this countryside protection in the north-west and north-east parts of the county have been rejected. What we do have instead are 'Green Wedges' around Leicester. These are essentially tongues of countryside extending almost to the inner city between ribbon development along major arterial roads. The 'Pennbury' proposal will effectively infill the Green Wedge between Oadby and Thurnby, possibly extending as far east as Houghton-on-the-Hill.

The 'Leicester Model' has been promoted as an example of good practice by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and we might take comfort from the idea that we have Green Wedge protection from threats such as 'Pennbury'. However, the recent RSS Examination in Public Panel Report reveals the true legislative strength of Leicester's Green Wedges. Paragraph 14.48 of the EiP Panel Report (page 142) states:

'Green Wedges do not have the national policy status of the Green Belt and it seems to us that there is justifiable concern that they should not be regarded as unduly restrictive and must be subject to review in order to accommodate new development.'

Para. 14.50 states that Green Wedges are 'essentially a local policy tool' and goes on to say 'we consider that the justification for the retention of existing green wedges, as well as for the creation of new ones in association with new development and urban extensions, should be a matter for local development framework core strategies'

Para. 14.51 recommends that 'A review of existing green wedges or the creation of new ones in association with development will be carried out through the local development framework process.'

It therefore looks unlikely that the Green Wedge on the City's south-eastern flanks will afford any protection from any proposal such as 'Pennbury'. It also appears that the Panel's comments had Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUEs) in mind when their Report was compiled. Such urban extensions are deemed 'sustainable' because they are often mixed use (i.e. residential and employment land) and being close to where people work, shop and use other facilities, the need for private transport is drastically minimised - in theory. It is worth noting that the Duchy of Cornwall's Poundbury urban extension to Dorchester is not as sustainable as envisaged; in terms of private transport it has the highest car use in West Dorset. Poundbury has also brought about an increase in property values in West Dorset.

A lot of work and time has been expended on looking at suitable sites for these SUE's around the city of Leicester. To fund these SUEs Leicester and Leicestershire received a share of £37 million awarded to the Three Cities Sub-Area to develop under the 'Growth Points Initiative'. This is a significant amount of money, representing 14% of the national total for such initiatives.

This begs two questions: to what extent will 'Pennbury' undermine SUEs and how will 'Pennbury' itself be sustainable? By definition, anything sustainable in the planning sense is development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. That is, carrying out activities which take nothing away from the Earth, or if taken away the Earth can quickly replenish i.e. are renewable. Plainly, many of mans' activities are unsustainable and consumption either has to be cut out altogether, curbed or sensibly mitigated against.

There is much talk of eco-towns being 'carbon neutral' or 'near-zero carbon'. The key word missing from these labels is 'fossil', meaning the consumption of fossil fuel resources. This refers to the lifetime of the buildings in question and to a certain extent the lifestyles of those who live there. All very laudable but is it realistic to expect people to completely rely on public transport and vow not to take one or more short-haul air trips to the sunshine every year? Also, how do you enforce people to live adjacent to their place of work? There also seems to be no reference to the 'embedded' fossil carbon in the construction of an eco-town or the materials used in its construction. That is, in the manufacture of products such as glass and cement a huge amount of energy is used, most of which is fossil-fuel dependent. We are told that nuclear power stations emit no (fossil) carbon dioxide, yet how much was liberated during their construction and in the manufacture of concrete and steel used, not forgetting transport of materials during the working lifetime and eventual decommissioning?

For the time being we'll leave discussion of sustainability, fossil carbon and other emissions until we've learned of the Government's decision about 'Pennbury'. There is however one very important aspect that the government should consider when deciding on where to situate new towns such as 'Pennbury'. This is putting new settlements in locations where they are most needed. In making such a decision the priority will be in identifying those areas where regeneration is an absolute priority. To this extent the Government has, courtesy of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, published the ' English Indices of Deprivation'. This publication identifies more than thirty indicators, organised into the following seven domains: income deprivation; employment deprivation; health deprivation and disability; education, skills and training deprivation; barriers to housing and services; living environment deprivation and last, crime.

A map showing the East Midlands areas of Multiple Deprivation can be found on page 59. While the city of Leicester itself is showing up areas of greatest deprivation, by the greatest will in the world it is difficult to see how an out-of-city development such as 'Pennbury' can address deprivation matters through regeneration. On a regional strategic level this map shows where the greatest need for any new town is - mainly in the north Nottinghamshire area. On a national level, the maps on pages 104-113 indicate the areas of greatest need. Plainly, 'Pennbury' does not fulfil criteria to warrant a regenerative role.

Another important factor for the Secretary of State to consider is the National Brownfield Strategy. This identifies urban land which can be re-used in towns and cities and one of the strategy's main objectives is to safeguard the environment. Again, evidence from maps shows where the greatest opportunities for regenerative development are - mainly in cities and towns - not the rolling agricultural scenery of the open countryside to the east of Leicester! Nationally, the greatest concentrations of 'brownfield' (= 'Previously Developed Land') are the Greater London area, the West Midlands, the Lancs-Yorks industrial belt and the North-East. Not unnaturally these areas coincide with the areas of multiple deprivation, mentioned above. It would be surprising therefore if the ten new 'eco-towns' were not located within these regions.

The National Brownfield Strategy Recommendation to Government document.

By coincidence, the very day this article is being written, English Partnerships has issued a Press Release which states:

'The national regeneration agency, English Partnerships, has expanded its specialist brownfield team, broadening the expertise necessary to assess brownfield sites and determine appropriate future developments. In doing so the team is set to make significant contributions in particular to the target of three million new homes detailed in the Housing Green Paper, at least 60 per cent of which will be built on brownfield land, or provided through the conversion of existing buildings.'

Can this be seen as encouraging news as far as the protection of our Leicestershire countryside is concerned? One viewpoint is that since the land in question is effectively in single ownership, it therefore ticks the box as far as ease of acquisition is concerned.

An important aspect of the subject of 'Previously Used Land' , aka brownfield land, is the debate concerning the status of the land occupied by Leicestershire Aero Club. This is an active aerodrome with fourteen years to run on its lease from the landowner, the Co-Op. 'Pennbury', if permitted, would sit squarely on the aerodrome site. When Planning Policy Guidance 3 was revised brownfield land was deemed to include aerodromes and hospital estates. This emerged as Annex B in Planning Policy Statement 3, which is a material planning document. Both types of land-use mainly incorporate large expanses of grassland. In the cases of aerodromes, the fields within the perimeter are often farmed. Leicester aerodrome is clearly not concreted over to the extent that any normal description would define it as a brownfield site. This is a contentious argument and readers might find these web pages of interest (Annex A)[PDF].

Leicestershire Aero Club is fighting for its right to protect the tenancy agreement. One of the principles of sustainable development is that it doesn't displace any activity by imposing it elsewhere. If the Aero Club did have to relocate perhaps the logical place would be Sywell, which already has opposition on environmental grounds.

Very few, in fact hardly any details have emerged concerning the type of infrastructure envisaged for 'Pennbury'. If the applicants really do not have any firm ideas about the type and scale of infrastructure needed to sustainably support the new town (and not undermine Leicester city's regeneration) then this Pennbury business can only be seen as a smash-and-grab speculative venture.

Will the Government allow 'Pennbury' to undermine all the excellent work being carried out in Leicester, such as the Leicester Partnership (Leicester's Local Strategic Partnership) the Aalborg Commitment (which among other things seeks to strengthen Agenda 21 issues) and the Leicester Economic Action Partnership?

Leicestershire CPRE will comment more fully in due course on practical matters relating to 'Pennbury' if the Government decides that the project should go ahead. In the meantime please visit the 'Save England' campaign website which includes a link to a Number Ten ePetition.

CPRE have challenged the National Housing and Planning Unit's figures, upon which the Government has based its inflated housing projections. The figures are fundamentally flawed and CPRE's case is set out here.

Also, will the Government ignore the Calcutt Review of Housebuilding Delivery [PDF], (sub-titled 'Less Could Mean More') published in April 2007?

This Report focused on the way regenerative housebuilding projects are funded, the slow process of procuring and releasing brownfield land, poor design standards and the need for focusing delivery in the Growth Points. One particular area for criticism was the undermining effect of buy-to-let investors.

In February 2007 CPRE published a Report called 'Untapped Potential'.

This showed that many local authorities and developers are seriously underestimating the amount of brownfield land with redevelopment potential. This Report showed that London alone has enough small sites close to town centres to accommodate approximately 60,000 new homes.

Clearly, the expectation with 'Pennbury' is that you can build your way out of housing difficulties. The planning process is set to go astray and the loss of expanses of countryside amenity will be the price to pay. Sadly, this will be the legacy to hand on to our children and their children if economics take precedence over all else.

Pictures of the 'Pennbury' Green Wedge

Little Stretton with Stretton Hall and Great Glen in the distance.

The valley of the Sence in the foreground with Cotterill Farm and Spinney in the middle distance - prime building land!

The vast concreted acres of the Leicestershire Aero Club, looking north-west towards Thurnby. The active runways constitute a mere 0.6% of the Pennbury development site, or only 0.27% of the total Co-Op/English Partnerships land.

Saturday 11th October 2008

It is now twenty-eight weeks since we were consulted on the eco-towns shortlisted by the Government's Department for Communities and Local Government. That consultation only extended over the minimum period of twelve weeks. Since the end of that consultation period we have seen no less than five different versions of the eco-town proposed for Leicester, the latest and perhaps the final version appeared in local papers on Wednesday, October 8th.

The day previously, Leicestershire CPRE submitted these comments, having been invited to do so by the Leicestershire County Council Scrutiny Review Panel on the Proposed Development of an Eco-Town.

The website for this latest plan is at www. ecotownforleicestershire.coop As a general scheme there's little to take issue with though there's a lot of detail missing. The main issue of course is that this eco-town proposal is for development in completely the wrong place. It is being driven by the wants of the developer (who just happens to own the land in question) not the needs of strategic planning.

Given the period of economic downturn we have now entered there are bound to be huge uncertainties. It is difficult to see how even the most able of analysts can predict likely outcomes for the transport, employment and retail activity of this eco-town.

'Leicester should strengthen its weaknesses, not weaken its strengths.' To what extent will this eco-town proposal be parasitic upon the City and its suburban area? This is a very important question and no doubt Humanities teachers in and around Leicester have already set their students essays on this very local point. It's well worth Googling these terms: Reilly's Law of Retail Gravitation, Breakpoint theory, market area, urban field, catchment area, hinterland and Sphere of Influence. Given the business activities of the proposer of this eco-town, it could well be that the developing settlement becomes a large retail centre, inducing out-of-town shopping journeys from not just the City but a much wider area in the region. This obviously undermines the strategic Regional Spatial Strategy.

Any models put forward for transport and employment, etc., can only have very low levels of confidence. Given the state of economic affairs the only logical choice is to develop those areas of the city and its urban fringe where needs are greatest. These just happen to be on the opposite side of the City to the eco-town.

The Leicestershire CPRE Branch has submitted numerous letters, comments and Press releases to the local press, though little is published. You'd think that a PR headed 'An Ecotown called SUE' would catch an editor's eye! As we approach the beginning of November 2008 we are subjecting Version 5.0 of the Co-Op's eco-town design to critical scrutiny. To say that we're working on shifting sands or that the goalposts are in a state of constant flux is an understatement.

As a proportion of the three million new homes the Government say we need by 2020, ecotowns (even the full shortlist of ten) will deliver a miniscule proportion of this total. At the moment, the new Housing Minister (The MP for Derby South, Margaret Beckett) is a bit of an unknown quantity. Doubtless the drive for ecotowns comes from Number Ten, though we wonder how much of a force majeure Senior Civil Servants (Henry Cleary for example) are at The Department for Communities and Local Government.

The Partial Review of the East Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) has commenced and a worrying term has crept into its lingua franca. That term is 'polycentricity'. We read this as a euphemism for cramming the 'Golden triangle' with development. The Golden Triangle in RSS planning terms is the 'Three Cities Sub-Area', aka the 6Cs - the 'Three Cities Three Counties Sub-Region'. For an example of what polycentricity means, refer to www.polynet.org.uk/docs/1_1_randstad.pdf This has extremely serious consequences for rural areas. That is, we cannot be profligate with greenfield locations either already worked for food production, or with the potential to do so. Global Peak Oil and its economic fallout dictates that a good percentage of our agricultural land will inevitably mean that some will be required for non-food crops, in other words, biofuels. This of course will not apply if our masters take us down the highly unsustainable coal-powered route ('clean coal' is not yet a reality) or the dangerous nuclear route. So far, the UK Government has done next to nothing to bring on renewables to anything like the scale required. Being on the cusp of a protracted period of decline you'd think that people in Westminster would be pulling out all the stops. Much of the solution lies in effecting behaviour change by reducing demand and adopting sustainable lifestyles.

Leicestershire's (not Leicester City's) proposed eco-town will permanently take out an enormous area of productive agricultural land. So far, the Co-Op and English Partnerships have been very coy about the 'worth' of this land by way of what it produces in terms of human and animal food. To that end, Harborough MP Edward Garnier QC has tabled the following Parliamentary Questions:

'Named Day Written question to: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for answer on 28 Oct 2008 12:00 AM
What studies has his department commissioned into the suitability of the Cooperative Wholesale Society's Stoughton Farm Estate in Harborough for horticulture?'

'Named Day Written question to: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for answer on 28 Oct 2008 12:00 AM
What sums of public money have been paid to the Cooperative Wholesale Society or its farming division by or through his department from UK and EU sources in respect of the production at its Stoughton Farm Estate in Harborough of (a) wheat (b) barley (c) oats (d) other cereal crops (e) oil seed rape (f) beans and (g) all other arable farm produce in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available, specifying in each case the tonnage in respect of which the monies were paid?'

The replies are keenly awaited.
Graham Stocks,
October 24th 2008.

PRESS RELEASE - NO EMBARGO

Environment Group warns eco-town plans unviable

23 October 2008

Campaign to Protect Rural England's (CPRE) Leicestershire Branch warns that eco-town proposals are based on unrealistic and unviable assumptions.

In a paper by the City's Overview and Scrutiny Management Board, due to be discussed today, the remaining challenges of the proposed eco-town at Pennbury are examined.

CPRE considers that the proposal fails to comply with the Council's Test 2 - to avoid significant added pressure on the road network.

The paper states "If everything the Co-op is proposing is delivered....the transport impacts of the Eco-town would be manageable." However there are large question marks over the deliverability of the transport proposals. The analysis shows that a tram is essential to achieve the reductions in car use. Yet 75% of the tram's estimated £400 million costs will need to come from outside the development. The paper states "The means for delivery of a tram system have not been considered in detail at yet."

CPRE Leicestershire spokesperson Graham Stocks said:

"The success of Pennbury as an ecotown hinges on the transport system proposed. Yet this tram is just pie in the sky given the current economic outlook. While a comprehensive tram scheme would clearly be beneficial for Leicester, it would be irresponsible for the council to approve this scheme on the basis of a hope and a prayer that £300 million can be found elsewhere."

CPRE also criticised the proposal that only 30% of the housing would be affordable. This is the minimum standard required of any housing scheme in the region and belies the claim that the eco-town is helping to address the very real need for affordable homes in Leicestershire.

Graham Stocks said "Pennbury is not the answer to Leicester's affordable housing needs - they are offering the bare minimum of houses required."

END