See original consultation website

Friends of the Earth (FoE) believe that the vision should address the problems of the area. The main problems of the West of England are:-

• Traffic congestion, with the pollution, noise and dislocation that brings;
• Inequality between rich and poor areas.

For many residents, one of the great attractions of the West of England is the abundance of beautiful countryside on our doorstep. The fine scenery that surrounds the major towns and cities is a great asset. Any development that destroyed parts of that countryside would be strongly opposed.

The area is generally affluent with a high level of employment but with pockets of deprivation. There is no local need for high uncontrolled growth, which would worsen rather than improve the problems given above. Recent rapid development in the Bristol north fringe has brought disastrous traffic congestion, destroyed the countryside and left the new residents with almost no local services. We call this scenario Business as Usual (BaU).

FoE has a coherent and practical vision for the West of England that would address these problems and make the area a world leader in sustainability. Large areas could be made into pleasant, clean, quiet and safe traffic-free areas. Local services could provide the daily needs of residents within easy walking distance of their homes. Residential streets could be safe places for children to play and residents to meet and linger. We call this scenario Traffic-free (TF).

In our daily lives we are so used to traffic-filled streets that we stop noticing how unpleasant they are, and the relief experienced in traffic-free streets is often unexpected. European cities that have created traffic-free areas have found that initial opposition from motorists and traders changed to total support when the end result was experienced. Economic prosperity follows naturally as people want to be there because the area is so much more pleasant.

We understand that growth is being pressed on the West of England by government, regional policies and by commercial interests who will profit from it. We welcome limited growth as long as it offers resources that can be channelled to regeneration and addressing problems within the sub-region. The area needs some investment to be dynamic and to move forward. However it is clear to Friends of the Earth that the level of growth proposed will do more harm than good.

Growth does not always improve quality of life. The Index of Sustainable Welfare shows that economic growth in the UK since about 1980 has accompanied a steady decline in the quality of life. This is in part because the increase in average pay has not compensated for the loss of amenity caused by increasing traffic congestion, noise, pollution and the loss of open spaces, local shops and services. FoE believes we should aim for increased happiness and quality of life for the people of West of England rather than increased prosperity.

The more growth is encouraged the harder it becomes to direct that growth to where it is needed. Regeneration and brownfield sites pose problems for developers; as long as extensive greenfield sites exist developers will not seriously consider such sites without significant public subsidies.

Rapid growth round the edges of the built-up areas will bring rapid growth in traffic. The new developments will not be self-contained communities and will have no time to evolve and grow the services they need. The social capital turns an estate into a community takes many years to build. The traffic will not just affect the new developments but will congest the neighbouring urban and rural areas as residents and employees commute in and out.

We welcome the acceptance that future development should be at high density. Higher densities are much more sustainable than the very low densities that have been widely enforced by the planning policies in the last 50 years.

Apart from reducing the land needed, higher densities encourage local services and make public transport viable. These two effects together can dramatically reduce the need for car travel, so the requirement for parking and road space can be reduced, allowing higher densities in a virtuous circle. The densities of less than 50 dph net suggested by government guidance are not high enough for this to happen, and various studies suggest that the minimum density for a sustainable settlement is 275 people per hectare gross. For family dwellings this translates to about 70 dwellings per hectare (dph) gross.

The same argument applies to job densities in employment development, so 275 jobs per hectare gross should be the target. These high densities are allowed by government guidance, and we believe this does follow the spirit of the government guidance that urges efficient use of land.

This kind of density can be achieved without town cramming, cramped conditions or high-rise buildings. Many desirable neighbourhoods such as Clifton, some Victorian terraces and many cities in continental Europe have such high densities. High density has a bad reputation because it is associated with poor quality public sector housing, but it is the poor quality that is the problem, not the high density.

The high density urban village need only be a few hundred metres across, so that the entire village is within walking distance of the centre, where services and transport can be concentrated. The village can be surrounded by open space or existing low density developments without reducing the benefit of the high density.

A car-based society has less sense of community and more crime. People who drive are much less likely to use local shops or local services or live near where they work. Local shops and services are not likely to be viable in neighbourhoods where most adults drive. Without local shops and services, the residents of such an area are much less likely to meet or talk to others who live in the same street.

Developments that have generous provision for cars will have low density because of the parking and road space. This makes it almost impossible for public transport to be viable, so those who can will drive, and local shops and services will fail. Research has clearly shown that residents of traffic-free streets have a rich social network, while residents of streets with busy traffic have little interaction with their neighbours. Residents in traffic-free streets can form a proper community and take pride in their area.

There is also a strong link between social capital and crime. Social capital is the network of formal and informal groups such as football teams, amateur dramatics and investment clubs. A rich network means strong connections within the community, bringing a sense of identity and belonging. Research shows that a richer social capital means less anti-social behaviour, such as crime and vandalism, even among those people not involved in the network.

At the consultation meeting on 8 December 2004, graphs were displayed showing forecasts of household size. These showed clearly that the number of family homes is expected to be fairly static up to 2026, while virtually all of the household growth is in single person households.

In most of the suburban areas throughout the sub-region the existing housing stock is predominately multiple bedroom family housing. In addition, most recent housing developments outside the centre of Bristol have been almost all family houses. It is clear therefore that an imbalance exists in most residential areas.

For these reasons alone it makes sense to focus future housing development on single bedroom dwellings. Such a policy would have a number of other distinct advantages:

• Single bedroom dwellings are more easily built at very high density;
• A given number of single bedroom dwellings take less land than family homes;
• Young and elderly single people and childless couples are more likely to want the advantages that very high density housing gives, i.e. proximity to services and public transport;
• Young and elderly single people and childless couples are more likely to choose to live without a car, provided they can live within walking distance of services and public transport.

As far as possible, new housing should located so as to minimise the need for driving. The best locations would be within the existing urban area close to existing jobs, services and public transport. The objective should be to locate the highest density developments nearest to centres of services and public transport. New developments should not be sited on open spaces or playing fields and especially not in sites of wildlife importance.

We strongly oppose the continued development of greenfield sites, especially green belt and open spaces within the urban area. The purpose of a green belt is to prevent sprawl and keep development within a tight urban area. If the green belt is moved out every time developers want new greenfield sites then the green belt serves no purpose. It is also important to preserve open spaces within the urban area. In the absence of extensive greenfield development land around the urban fringe, it is tempting for developers to press for development of parks and playing fields. Local planning policies should strongly resist such proposals, especially near high density developments.

A side effect of high density and the type of housing we recommend would be that very little if any greenfield land would be taken. At the very high densities we recommend, 3700 new single bedroom dwellings would fit in about 8 hectares. While we do not support the building of this many dwellings, we believe 8 hectares could be found each year within the existing built-up areas. In addition to derelict and underused land, car parks can be redeveloped.

In addition to climate change, discussed below, the BaU policies could have the following damaging effects on the environment

• Loss of open space with corresponding loss of wildlife habitat
• Pollution from road traffic
• Noise from road traffic
• Loss of access and community caused by road traffic
• Pollution from construction and associated extraction and waste disposal
• Increased storm-water run-off
• Damage from quarrying aggregates needed for development.

Although the Vision consultation document seeks environmental improvements, there is little prospect of improvements under a BaU scenario. The expected growth will result in significant further damage to the environment, especially if the development is not at very high density and is not accompanied by significant restraint of road traffic.

Scientific evidence indicates that climate change is happening now and is likely to be significant for the West of England by 2026. It is not clear how the local weather will change, but there will be more extremes of drought and storm. Sea level may rise by about a metre as the Greenland ice melts. In combination this could cause major problems to low lying coastal development, and sea defences are likely to be regularly breached. In particular, Avonmouth, Clevedon and Weston are all vulnerable. Areas of Bristol and Bath close to the river could also be flooded.

Three global climate changes have been observed:-

• global warming from greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane and CHCs;
• global dimming from air pollution and aircraft vapour trails;
• decline in the Gulf Stream current in the north Atlantic caused by the melting of the Arctic ice.

Unless drastic action is taken by 2026, the global climate will change dramatically in 50 years. It is possible that the UK could be substantially hotter or substantially colder. The change in temperature could be quite sudden as the tropical forests catch fire or the Gulf Stream ceases.

Unless action is taken, the three major producers of greenhouse gases in the West of England up to 2026 will be road traffic, construction and air travel. All these three could be reduced by determined planning policies.

A sustainable economy is one that is stable and independent. Dependence on inward investment means that the economy can be badly damaged by forces that we cannot control. Such investment is today very mobile; when conditions such as exchange rates change such a business can easily move away or may fail because of losing its market. While a proportion of inward investment brings resources and new ideas, the stability of an economy depends on its local businesses.

Businesses that are not local can suck money away from the area. It may buy goods and services centrally, and will distribute profits out of the area. It will generate more traffic by bringing in goods and selling to distant markets.

Local services and businesses with local links have their roots in the area. Research shows that local businesses are much more likely to support the local economy because they buy more locally, have more local customers and spend their profits locally. They cause less traffic for similar reasons.

The peak of oil production is likely to come before 2026, and thereafter production will decrease. Demand for oil is currently growing very rapidly as China and India industrialise. It is therefore likely that oil will quickly become scarce and expensive. It is also possible that draconian measures will need to be taken globally to reduce the production of greenhouse gases.

The settlement patterns set by development up to 2026 will persist for hundreds of years. A car-based pattern will be very impractical when oil is scarce and expensive, and areas designed to support cars are likely to become the unwanted slums of the future.

The central objective of transport policy should be to reduce road traffic. There are no easy ways to achieve this. The general rule is that motorists are deterred by heavy traffic, and roads will fill until they become intolerably congested. New roads do not relieve existing roads but generate new journeys that would otherwise not be attempted. Conversely research has shown that road closures cause traffic to disappear, so there is no need to provide alternative routes.

Thus every policy that takes a car off the road creates a space for a different car. For this reason, Park and Ride, car sharing and improved public transport do not of themselves reduce traffic. The actions that actually reduce traffic have to be much more direct such as:-

• the reduction of capacity by closure of roads or lanes;
• charging for the use of roads, such as congestion charging or tolls;
• reduction of parking spaces.

FoE would strongly support any such schemes. The ideal scheme would be for funds raised by road charging to be spent on public transport. The improvements to public transport should make the charging politically accessible.

FoE is deeply concerned about the rapid growth of air traffic and the greenhouse gases the aircraft emit. Flying is not in any sense sustainable, and should not be supported in any way by public authorities. In particular, any scheme for road improvement to Bristol Airport would be an environmental disaster.

Alan Pinder

— Web Master auto generated by txt2dokuwiki