NIMBY? Not me mate!

Whenever I raise objections to some or other huge development on greenfield land someone invariably calls me a NIMBY, usually online. "Oh you're just a NIMBY', 'People have to live somewhere' and so forth. Lets examine some facts for a minute. Firstly it may be useful to throw in a definition of NIMBY (Not in My Backyard):

....a person who objects to the siting of something perceived as unpleasant or hazardous in their own neighbourhood, especially while raising no such objections to similar developments elsewhere.

Hmmm. Let's start with the first part of that. I live in the middle of New Town, very near to Port Lane and Paxman's Diesel factory. I have never objected to the continued activity of the factory or to its location. Moreover a few years ago a large housing estate was built on part of the Paxman's site on Port Lane, Lenz Close and so forth, which I fully supported. It was an excellent use of this brownfield site and just the kind of place to put lots of new homes. Now you could argue that the new houses were not as unpleasant as the brick wall that ran down the lane previously. Fair point, however it still rather mitigates against the notion that Goacher just moans about new houses in his own backyard. Indeed the only major housing development really close to where I live is one that I supported fully. It improved the area and it is now both greener and more pleasant than what was there before. That is how utilising brownfield sites can work.
Now let's turn to the second part of the NIMBY definition. Surely no one could accuse me of not raising objections to unpleasant developments elsewhere. I don't live near West Tey, yet I object to that. I don't live near Salary Brook, yet I object strongly to concreting over that. I shouldn't be doing so if I was a proper NIMBY. I should be saying, 'yes dump all the urban sprawl out in the sticks away from me in New Town'.
Furthermore I like wind and solar farms. I wouldn't mind living near one personally, certainly preferable to a huge modern urban housing estate full of boxes and astro-turf lawns. They may change the look of a place but they don't destroy the countryside:

What a rubbish NIMBY I seem to be. For some real NIMBYism I'd suggest you look elsewhere. Here for example in today's Colchester Gazette:

A certain Cllr Young is objecting to the siting of a huge new town near to Wivenhoe, a project he previously fully supported in every Council meeting until the developers proposed moving it too close to wards occupied by councillors from Mr Young's own party. It is not just Labour councillors that behave like this. Conservative , Labour and Lib Dem councillors are all fighting to defend their patches and dump the huge urban sprawl on each other's areas, instead of uniting together in order to challenge central government and the developers. That, I suggest, is real NIMBYism for you!

As for Goacher, well I'd suggest that a better definition for me would be NIABY (Not in Anyone's Backyard). We need to develop more brownfield sites like the Port Lane site. Start with the former Odeon and get moving on that huge area of concrete near to The Range , off Cowdray Avenue. Meanwhile let's stand up to the developers who want to concrete over the countryside and green spaces.

Challenging Lib Dem Plans For Huge New Towns Near Colchester

You may have seen my recent letters in the Gazette regarding 'West Tey'. On 23rd February I attended a borough council scrutiny meeting at the town hall in which the Liberal Democrat councillor for Castle Ward Bill Frame, who is the councillor responsible for planning, outlined plans for a series of huge new towns on the outskirts of Colchester. These would be built on greenfield sites, open countryside, with two planned in the first instance and more to follow. Countryside around Marks Tey (the "West Tey" proposal), Langham and on the Essex-Tendring border near Essex University are all being mooted as possible sites. The leader of Colchester Borough Council Paul Smith (Lib Dem) has described the proposal as having, "great potential". In other words he is all for it. A petition against the West Tey proposal already has over 6000 signatures on it, however the council are doing all they can to kick this petition into the long grass and to avoid having to hold a full council debate over the issue.
Cllr Frame is using a clever piece of flim-flam in order to disguise the nature of the proposals. He is calling the new towns "garden settlements". At the scrutiny meeting several councillors clearly had no idea what a garden settlement was, which allowed Cllr Frame to wax lyrical about 19th century urban idealism, Cadbury homes at Bournville and all to use all manner of nice sounding eco-friendly terminology. However reality soon emerged. These are new towns with as much housing as possible and the average cost of each home will be £200,000 each. Cllr Frame explained how this housing would be affordable and you could almost hear the sound of jaws hitting the floor. Out of touch doesn't even begin to cover it.
This is a classic example of green sounding language being used to disguise urban sprawl and countryside loss. "Garden settlements" conjures up images of pretty cottages in the Cotswolds with thatched rooves and lush gardens brimming with roses. The reality will be new towns crammed with expensive and large modern houses. It is a similar disingenuous approach to the use of confusing acronyms such as SUE (Sustainable Urban Extension) to disguise developments and lend them a green veneer.

COUNTRYSIDE LOSS

Should the West Tey  plan go ahead, large amounts of countryside near Marks Tey and Braintree would be concreted over with 14,000 houses. Coggeshall would also be seriously affected and become just an offshoot of the main new town (see map below):

There would also be a large increase in traffic on the roads around Braintree, Marks Tey and Witham.
Rather than protecting the countryside, the plan simply involves moving the urban sprawl a few miles further out from Colchester and dumping it there.

 INFRASTRUCTURE PROMISES

Cllr Frame has suggested that the new towns will contain their own infrastructure, schools, shops and healthcare facilities so that pressure will not be increased on Colchester's already stretched services. Frankly if you believe this, you may as well believe in Santa Claus and leprechauns. Colchester has grown by 24,000 people and thousands of new houses since 2001, yet the rate of infrastructure investment has not kept up with this expansion. Our hospital is struggling to cope, our roads jammed up and our bus station remains a joke. If they can't secure the investment needed for Colchester, then why should we believe that they will do it for the new towns? Pressure will just be further increased on Colchester's services as the new residents drive to Colchester.
Developers tend to promise the earth in terms of infrastructure in order to secure planning permission. Afterwards they negotiate down their responsibilities in order to maximise profits. The basis of any negotiation process is to go in hard in the first instance so that the resulting compromises are in your favour. Unfortunately, given the lack of infrastructure to go with Colchester's huge recent growth, the current council seem to lack the energy to do this. Its almost as if their approach to developers and central government is to raise the white flag.


HOMES FOR THE NEXT GENERATION?

Cllr Frame has claimed that the new houses, 14,000 at "West Tey" alone, are to house the next generation.
Yet how on earth would young first-time buyers be able to afford £200,000 homes given the proliferation of increased student debt and zero-hours contracts which Cllr Frame's party pushed through when in government?  The reality is that this is an expansion programme and part of a growth, growth, growth agenda.
The new housing he has provided since 2001 has simply increased the Colchester population by 24,000. These were not primarily homes for the local young.

THE NEED FOR SOCIAL AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING

We do need to utilise brownfield sites to provide homes for local young people and families in need. We also need to make renting a viable alternative to buying as this is the only way to stabilise house prices. I explain how to do both here:
http://markgoachergreen.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/we-need-new-approach-to-housing-and.html


 

Vote Green For Jobs and Our Countryside

Vote Green for jobs. The Green Party aims to create up to a million new jobs in climate change related initiatives. This includes specific plans for £45bn investment in home insulation, creating around 100,000 jobs, and £25bn in renewable energy.

Vote Green for our countryside. I keep being asked where the Green Party would build the 500,000 new council homes which we aim to provide. The answer is on brownfield sites. There are over 66,000 hectares of brownfield sites in England alone and the government itself estimates that this could provide room for 1.5 million new homes. Within central London the figures are even higher. The point is clear, we do not need to concrete over the countryside to address the need for more social housing.

Guarantee: I will Never Support Increased House Building on Green Field Sites

I want to make something crystal clear to anyone thinking of voting for me in the upcoming General Election and who may have been alarmed by Green Party leader Natalie Bennett's well publicised pledge to build 500,000 new council houses in five years of a Green Party government. As a Green MP I would only support this plan as long as the homes were built on brownfield sites. Within the party I am currently calling for clarification on this matter as the location of these homes in terms of types of site needs to be made clear to the electorate. However I can promise Colchester voters that there is more chance of me flying to Mars on a spaceship made of chocolate than there is of me ever supporting building large housing estates over the countryside. 

Brownfield Sites Available

The current government estimates that there is capacity for 400,000 new homes on public sector brownfield sites, mainly former industrial sites, in London alone (Gov.uk website). Add to this private sector brownfield sites and the capacity goes above 500,000 just in London alone.
Within Colchester there have been some excellent brownfield site developments in recent years. Within a short distance from my house part of the former Paxman diesel site was recently developed into a new estate which is a vast improvement on what was there before, that being a grotty disused industrial eyesore with a huge brick wall running down Port Lane. There have been some excellent developments down at the Hythe and there is capacity for more. Former factories, warehouse sites and garages can be transformed for the better by residential development.

My Record on this Issue

Preserving the countryside for future generations is one of my most cherished beliefs. I have helped people I know to campaign against a massive housing development imposed on the villages of Barwell and Stapleton in Leicestershire, where I grew up, by Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council for five years via letter writing, leaflet distribution, internet campaigning and liaising with sympathetic politicians from other parties.  In the Colchester area I have opposed imposed from on high green field development in Coggeshall and am currently writing letters and publicising the threats to both Salary Brook and Irvine Road Orchard. Back in the 1990s I supported the campaigns against the destructive road building schemes that were the Newbury bypass and Twyford Down projects. Admittedly this was via letter writing rather than Swampy-style direct action however the bottom line is that you can trust me on this issue. It is where my heart lies. Any attempt by any whip or similar 'enforcer' to make me do an about turn would be met with the phrase, "Go take a running jump".

The Green Party Must Not Abandon its Support For the Green Belt 

Unfortunately, at the upcoming Green Party spring conference, a new planning draft paper is being put forward by Tom Chance, a member of Southwark Green Party. This re-writes the policy chapter on planning following an enabling motion at the 2014 spring conference. The re-write contains a highly dangerous and thinly veiled attempt to water down the party's commitment to the green belt. I would urge any Green Party member attending this conference to vote against this draft paper.  The wording in question states:

LP510 Local authorities should review their green belt on a periodic basis where they are failing to achieve sustainable development, for example where they are causing sprawl and commuting beyond their bounds, and where there is scope for more sustainable development on existing green belt sites, for example near transport hubs. Reviews should seek to achieve the policies set out in LP406, ensure no net loss in the quantity and quality of green belt land, and should aim to ‘green the greenbelt’.

On the surface, this clause seems highly green ('green the greenbelt') and about preserving it ('quantity and quality'). But it isn't. Look closer. It suggests that councils should move the greenbelt around to facilitate development on existing green belt land. 'Transport hubs' means building on greenbelt land next to roads or railways. It is similar to Conservative Party proposals to encourage councils to shift the green belt around. Yes the quantity stays the same but it means that an area of land that can be developed on will be freed up for building and replaced with an area that no one would ever want to develop or could be developed such as a high flood risk area. It is about facilitating more building in the countryside.
To adopt this clause would be anti-Green and I will never under any circumstances support it if passed. 

Please Sign the ePetition to Save Salary Brook Valley

The "Salary Brook Valley" (and its wider environs), meanders from the source of the brook’s spring water, near Ardleigh Reservoir, crossing Bromley Rd, through to Longridge / Greenstead, the A133 (Clingoe Hill) near the University, and to where Salary Brook’s spring water exits into the river Colne.
If you value this wonderful natural amenity please follow the link below, read and sign this ePetition:

http://colchester.cmis.uk.com/colchester/ePetitions/tabid/115/ID/1/Save-Salary-Brook-Valley.aspx

Remember once it's gone it's gone forever!!!

We Need to Save Our Farmers with Fair Trade Milk

Britain's dairy farmers are currently in a state of crisis. The big supermarkets have driven milk prices well below production costs and as a result farmers are having to sell up or are going bankrupt.Last week the number of dairy farms in England and Wales dropped below 10,000 for the first time and all the signs suggest that the exodus from farming will continue unless government action is taken.
Some readers of this blog may be thinking that this is actually a good thing either because they are vegans or because they see over-consumption of meat and its related products as contributing to global warming. While I myself am neither vegan or vegetarian, I do accept that ecologically it would be beneficial if worldwide meat consumption went down in the long term. However it is essential that any attempts to achieve this long-term are achieved in partnership with livestock farmers and via offering them financially beneficial alternatives rather than working against them. In the short-term however we must do everything to support British dairy farmers and for a number of reasons it is green to do so.

Why Should We Help Dairy Farmers?

Firstly if we don't help the small family dairy farms then they will disappear to be replaced with ever larger industrialised farms where the cows are put under even more pressure to produce milk yields beyond their metabolic limits. Already in the USA there are huge 'battery-cow' farms where 1000s of animals are kept permanently locked up inside narrow pens and injected with umpteen hormones in order to increase production. There are plans to set up similar institutions in the UK. Such institutionalised animal abuse is a far cry from the cow in the field who gets to live a natural life grazing in the open air. If, like me, you eat meat then the key consideration should be whether the animal has led a decent life before going to slaughter. Letting our dairy farmers go to the wall in order to be replaced by huge agribusinesses with battery style housing pens would be a huge setback to any real notion of animal welfare. See below:

If we are to avoid the above becoming the norm then we must defend our family dairy farmers.
Secondly if more of our farmers cannot survive in farming then the pressure will be on to sell their land to developers. The coalition government has removed virtually all planning protection from the ordinary countryside and created a 'presumption in favour of development'. In other words, if the land isn't farmed there is a high chance that the land will disappear under housing estates, shopping centres or warehouses. It will certainly not become a nice ecological meadow, well not as long as any of the other parties remain in government it won't.

What is Causing the Current Crisis?

The root of the problem is the distorted economic system and the supermarkets. The latter are driving down prices to a level that is destroying farmers economically. Most of the major British supermarkets are now selling milk very cheaply, in one case four pints of conventional whole milk for 89 pence (£0.89). Apologies for dancing between pints and litres, but four pints of milk is 2.27 litres, so divide that into 89 pence and you get just over 39.2 ppl (pence per litre). This is theoretically the total amount of money that has to be divided between the farmer, processor and retailer.  On the other hand two pints of organic milk cost on average around £1.14 instead. Doing the same maths, that makes the retail price of the organic milk almost exactly £1 per litre, more than twice the price of the conventional product.
As a result of the supermarkets, farmers are under pressure to produce more and more milk in order to make ends meet. Yet the result of doing so is even lower prices. It becomes a vicious circle. In addition Russia has banned imports of dairy products from the European Union in response to EU sanctions over the Ukraine. This has led to more milk staying in the EU and a further catastrophic downward slide in farm gate milk prices.

What is the Solution?

Ultimately the best solution to this would be regulation from on high either from governments or the institutions of the European Union. They would need to take on the supermarkets. However realistically this is not going to happen because national governments remain wedded to neo-liberalism and free-market zealotry. Until the UK and Europe goes politically green nothing will change this.
Therefore an alternative way to improve the financial fortunes of dairy farmers could be through the emergence of some kind of public contract, based on the principles of fair trade, where consumers can buy milk and dairy products knowing the price the farmer has been paid is equitable and fair.
This means using our purchasing power right now to support all those beleaguered small family dairy farms on the edge of a precipice, through the introduction of a fair trade milk scheme which gives them a guaranteed fair price, providing their production systems are ethical. We could challenge the various certification organisations to introduce a fair trade milk label, with some conditions for entry. A fair price should be agreed and then all fair trade milk given clear labels.
While I am often skeptical about green consumerism and its power to change things, it seems to me that in this case the only realistic short-term solution is a fair trade scheme, combined with a publicity drive to highlight the issues to the public.

Support the Campaign To Save Salary Brook Valley

Some of you may have seen the article in the Gazette (Thursday December 18) regarding the campaign by residents to have Salary Brook made into a country park to save it from development. Around 200 residents have backed this idea and I would invite all Green Party members and supporters to get behind this initiative to save this valuable countryside from the concrete.

Currently the Colchester East Community Association are campaigning to have Salary Brook named as an asset of community value due to its ecological value and the fact that it is a beauty spot. They state:

"It is a beauty spot with views of the valley from its ridges that are arguably, the best valley hillside views in the whole area (see the sample photographs).    There is easy footpath access to ancient woodlands, links to other well used footpaths through to Wivenhoe's natural amenities including its beautiful 'Colne river walk'.   Our valley has an air of tranquility, and an important wildlife population.   It provides a wonderful, easily accessible outdoor exercise amenity for all local people and their pets.   All of these aspects are irreplaceable and support our community's health and quality of life."

We simply have to defend our countryside from the unprecedented assault that it currently faces due to the government's reforms of the planning system creating a, 'presumption in favour of development' (ie a developers' charter) combined with the unacceptable targets for new housing being imposed on local councils by central government (the current draft local plan suggests building 21,000 houses on greenfield sites near Marks Tey and Greenstead).  We won't win every battle but it seems to me that Salary Brook is a prime example of an area of countryside with real ecological and social value that should be saved. 

Please cut & paste and circulate the 'Request for Support' email below. Then email the campaign team:

Colchester East Community Association (CECA)- ‘Save Salary Brook Valley’ Initiative.

We need to build our support (member) numbers to give extra leverage to achieving our future vision for this beautiful Valley. If you live near or come farther away to enjoy this lovely Valley, we want your support. Perhaps you could get sympathetic friends, neighbours, or other electors in your household, to send a simple email ASAP to :   ceca.countmein@gmail.com      and simply give it ‘Subject’ of ‘Count me in’ and ‘only if you wish’ add any thoughts you have on the issue.  

Thank you in advance the CECA team.

Below are some photos of what could be lost:

Why HRH The Prince of Wales is Right About the Countryside

The latest edition of "Country Life" magazine contains an article by Prince Charles entitled, "How Much is Our Countryside Worth?". The article puts forward a number of crucial arguments which in my view make a lot of sense and should be given major consideration by the Green Party when  framing policy concerning rural affairs and agriculture. The central thesis of the article is that our countryside is under threat because the, "delicate woven tapestry", that is rural life, farming and rural human activity are themselves under threat. While accepting that there are intangible aspects of the countryside that defy valuation, ..."the haunting cry of a curlew.. an ancient hedgerow...", it is the economic value of the 'ecosystem services' and the farming industry that are the best defence against the loss of the countryside.
I think that there is much truth in this. It is very tempting for us in the Green movement to assume that the best approach to conserving the countryside would be to turn as much of it as possible back to wilderness free from human activity. However, as Prince Charles argues, in the real world this would be a massive mistake as unless we put a value on the countryside that is economic as well as instinctive then the developers will. At the moment our countryside faces an unprecedented threat from the two-headed monster that is profit-hungry developers and politicians eager to base economic growth on the construction industry. The current issue of the Green Party magazine, Green World, points out that the Coalition's National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has created a laissez faire approach to planning, with much of the protection of the countryside removed and a 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' (which basically means a presumption in favour of development since the term sustainable is not defined and is open to a myriad of different interpretations. In addition Green World also points out that the proposed new Infrastructure Bill is a developers' charter which will exempt fracking companies from trespass laws and make it harder to oppose road building in the countryside. No wonder so many rural communities feel under siege at the moment from developers. No wonder also that wildlife in the UK is undergoing unprecedented rates of decline as a spate of recent reports has indicated. For example on average farmland birds have declined by 55% since 1970. Some such as the skylark, lapwing and yellowhammer have declined by 70%.

Given the scale of the assault on our countryside, I would agree with the Prince of Wales that it is vital to emphasise the economic value of the countryside as well as its natural beauty. As Prince Charles states:

"...meadows and other semi-natural grasslands are estimated to store around 300 tonnes of carbon. They also provide homes for pollinating insects, which are estimated to be worth £440 million a year to the agricultural economy. They play a big role in tourism too. Visitors to the South Downs alone put over £300 million into the economy."

Moreover it is also vital to help the farming industry to survive and to encourage it to work in harmony with the countryside. Put simply, if the farmers move out, the developers will move in. This is because we live in a current UK zeitgeist of crass materialism whether we like it or not (and I most certainly don't). Unless we defend those rural communities that keep and maintain the countryside as countryside and unless we enable our farmers to prosper then the countryside will disappear under developments. The politicians of the grey parties will not defend it, indeed they will facilitate its destruction and are doing so now.
Prince Charles paints a gloomy picture. Farmers in the upland areas of the UK last year earned, on average, only £8000. 700 rural pubs (the hubs of the community) closed last year and also 400 village shops.
The Green Party must make it a priority to help and defend our rural communities:

1) We should aim to compliment initiatives such as Prince Charles' Countryside Fund with emergency grants to farmers and government initiatives to save local services , pubs and shops.

2) We need to be brave and take on the supermarket vested interests who are putting farmers out of business by driving down wholesale prices to unprecedented levels. The grey parties are timid in the face of big business and we need to put communities first.

3) We need to preserve and extend rural public transport.

4) We need to encourage farmers to farm in harmony with the countryside and provide funding for organic farming initiatives and small scale producers.

Its Time To Defend the Countryside Around Colchester

The countryside around Colchester is under unprecedented attack from developers and local councils. In particular Tendring Council has earmarked land to the east of Greenstead, near the A120 and Ipswich Road, for 3000 houses. The new residents of these homes will pay their council tax to Tendring Council yet it is Colchester that will face the consequences in terms of more demand on school places, hospitals and other public services since the houses would be on our doorstep rather than Clacton's. In addition to this, Colchester Council is now reviewing its own local plan with the possible consequence that a further 3000 houses could be dumped on greenfield sites within Colchester borough.

Tendring Council are doing this because their initial plan for between 4000-6000 new homes was overruled by central government and a new figure of 12,000 homes imposed on them from on high. It is a simple fact that the planning system in England is neither democratic or based on localism. For all the coalition's talk about localism, in reality the legislation allows local communities to ask for more development (the so-called 'right to build') but they are not allowed to ask for less development. It is pure deception. The Conservative Housing Minister Nick Boles has reduced a 5000 page planning regulation document to 50 pages, ditching most of the protection for the environment and countryside from the planning system. This was at the instigation of the Chancellor George Osborne and is part of what David Cameron was refering to when he famously spoke about, "dropping the green shit". Most Conservatives on Tendring Council fully support the imposition of 12,000 houses on local communities, because they are singing to the tune of their central government masters. However they would rather dump a significant number of them on Colchester than have to face the problem of providing more infrastructure in Clacton to support the new residents.

Tendring Council's plan for 12,000 new homes states only plans for 5000 new jobs. It does not require a BA in Mathematics to  see the problem here. Also both Tendring Council and Colchester Council insist that the new homes are for local residents and not over spill from London. Yet there are not 12,000 homeless people in Tendring or 3000 people on the streets in Colchester. Again, a degree in Mathematics is not required to see the situation. The houses are being built to cover population increase. It is about encouraging more people into the area without providing either the infrastructure or the jobs to support them. It is coupled with the government's 'social cleansing' agenda for London, ie using the benefits cap to shift the poor out of London and into places such as Tendring.

Clearly, as a Green Party, it is up to us to take the lead in opposing this top-down imposed increase in development on green field sites. It amounts to the concreting over of huge swathes of our countryside and no attempt to dress development up as 'eco-homes' or 'carbon-neutral housing' will alter this fact. Vast areas of farmland and countryside will vanish under buildings and that includes both wildlife habitats and green spaces for people to walk in and enjoy. 
None of the other main parties can be trusted to oppose this assault on our countryside. The Conservatives and Labour have both made it crystal clear that they support it. The Conservatives on Tendring Council have backed the 12,000 homes and so has Labour's Tim Young on Colchester Borough Council. They would rather speak up for profit-hungry developers and their national masters Cameron and Miliband than defend the interests of the local people who vote for them. The only solution is to place your vote elsewhere. As far as the Lib Dems are concerned, Colchester MP Bob Russell has an excellent record of opposing these development plans and is quoted in the Evening Standard as having said:

"Tendring Council has a huge acreage of land from the Stour to the Colne and from the North Sea to Colchester and it should not need to plonk a significant part of its housing on Colchester's doorstep."

Unfortunately, if you look at what Mr Russell has actually said he is not opposing the building of the houses on green field land, just the dumping of 3000 of them next to Colchester. Fair enough, Mr Russell is standing up for Colchester here and the Green Party should be prepared to do business with him. However his position is essentially that of a nimby : not in my backyard (not necessarily a bad thing) wheres we need to be niabys : not in anyone's backyard. Massive housing estates dumped on local residents without their consent in order to facilitate population increase and boost developers profits are not acceptable anywhere because the cost in terms of the destruction of our countryside is too high. No ifs and no buts.

Support the Coggeshall Community Action Group

The Coggeshall Community Action Group are staging a protest walk on Sunday 14 (tomorrow) in opposition to a planned housing development by Honywood School and Marks Hall Estate.The group will meet at the Coggeshall clock tower in Stoneham Street at 11.30am on Sunday 14th September to walk through Coggeshall and on to Marks Hall.

The proposed £30million school could span the A120 joined by an access bridge and plans could see the current school site developed into houses. The new school would be built on a green field site which is unnecessary as the school already has a site and could be refurbished and rebuilt in stages. This is clearly a surreptitious attempt to get away with a large development on green field countryside by using the 'flipping' tactic ie swapping the housing estate with the school in order to depict those opposing it as opposing a school rather than urban housing sprawl. Also it is part of a dangerous trend whereby infrastructure improvements are funded only by housing/industrial developments and communities bullied into accepting this or putting up with run down facilities.
The Action Group is also asking people to write to the Charity Commission. See below (from their website):

Please write to the Charity Commission asap if you want to stop the Honywood Project!! The CAUSE group have written to the Charity Commission outlining our concerns and the Commission has written to tell us that Marks Hall must explain how the sale of the land is considered in the best interest of the charity otherwise they will not be allowed to sell the land. THE COMMISSION WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE PUBLIC OPPOSING THE PROPOSAL. 
We therefore need as many people as possible to write to: Tony Robinson, Charity Commission, PO Box 1227, Liverpool, L69 3UG saying, in your own words:
That you do not believe that it is not right for a charity which manages land left to the nation for the advancement of agriculture, arboriculture and forestry to sell agricultural land for 300 homes, an industrial park and a school.
That you do not believe it is in the best interest of the charity to give away five sixths of the proceeds of the sale of its land.
That you would like the charity to fully consider other options to secure the financial future of the Estate and that the Honywood Project is not the best way to go about it. (Please note that after several meetings with Marks Hall and three letters, CAUSE has still not been given any information on how the proceeds of the sale will actually be spent)
And anything else you feel about the behaviour of the charity. Time is ticking, please write!!!!!!! CAUSE - Campaign Against Urban Sprawl in Essex, is a partner group to CCAG

There is a link to the Action Group's website at the bottom of this blog. Please lend your support.

The Battle for Twyford Down: 20 Years On

Twyford Down is an area of chalk downland lying directly to the southeast of Winchester, Hampshire, England. It is situated near the South Downs National Park, next to St. Catherine's Hill. The down has been used as a settlement since pre-Roman times, and has hosted a fort and a chapel, as well as being a popular 17th and 18th century coaching route. When in 1991 the Department of Transport (DoT) announced the scheme to replace the A33 Winchester Bypass with the final section of the M3, there was widespread outrage. The road would destroy two Sites of Special Scientific Interest, two Scheduled Ancient Monuments and an area of outstanding natural beauty.
This was the most protected landscape in southern England, yet in just 2 years it was to change from a beautiful piece of historic land to a motorway.
The scheme was opposed for decades & became the subject of an official European Community environmental complaint. The European Community were ignored by the UK Government, and the complaint was later dropped amidst allegations of back room negotiations. The initial protest was led by the Twyford Down Association, local people who loved the Down, and adopted the conventional campaign tactics of lobbying, rallies, marches and legal appeals. They succeeded in getting the scheme reassessed and reassessed again, but the Government finally went ahead, despite numerous legal and political challenges.
National Friends Of the Earth intervened at the start of construction with non-violent direct action, but were forced to back off by the threat of massive legal costs. But while FoE camped on the threatened water meadows, a group of local young people were living on St. Catherine's Hill in the 'bender' dwellings which originated with the Gypsies, and which had become standard quarters in every protest site. These were the folk who were to become known as the Donga tribe.
Although the protests failed to stop the road being constructed, they succeeded in making the government of the day think twice about similar projects and, 20 years on, continue to serve as an inspiration to all those who value the countryside.

Overdevelopment in Colchester

It seems that Colchester is threatened with even more possible overdevelopment in the years ahead. Or to be precise the countryside around Colchester is being threatened. The latest possibility is that a 'garden city' could be built on the outskirts of town. 'Garden cities' are the coalition's equivalent of Gordon Brown's 'Eco Towns'. Such titles are examples of the kind of guff used by politicians when they wish to disguise massive housing developments as in some way being green or eco-friendly. In reality a massive housing estate is a massive housing estate. Another such disingenuous term is the acronym 'S.U.E' , which stands for 'Sustainable Urban Extension', which is.... you guessed it a massive housing estate, although with some infrastructure added on.
It seems that the possibility of a garden city has arisen because Colchester Borough Council has appealed for suggestions of sites across the borough that could be turned into housing or business land to feed into the council's Local Plan for development up to and beyond 2032. In the Call for Sites document, the council states:

"In particular, the councils- working together with Braintree and Tendering districts- would be willing to review proposals  for larger sites based on Garden Cities principles, designed to support infrastructure provision and sustainable growth". The council will accordingly work with adjacent authorities to evaluate proposals for land close to the borough boundaries that could potentially form part of a cross boundary development." 

Two terms in the above extract need clarification. Firstly councils and the government define 'sustainable' in an odd way ie not in terms of the long term survival of our countryside, wildlife and planet but simply as whether a bit of infrastructure, such as a school or new road is bunged onto the side of the massive housing estate. Secondly the term 'cross boundary development' resurrects the fear of a large-scale green field development on the border between Tendering and Colchester around Salary Brook, off the St John's estate.

Colchester has already seen massive development and expansion, much of it onto green field sites both in the town and on the outskirts over the last 20 years. The Turner Road area has been swamped with it and now there is the disaster which is the new Mile End development; thousands of houses built on green fields. It cannot in any way be sustainable to go on concreting over the countryside forever in order to use construction of buildings to foster a form of growth which disguises the woeful state of the rest of the UK economy. I've yet to hear any of the politicians who support this kind of development on green field sites, such as Conservative Housing Minister Nick Boles, say at what point such development should stop and whats left of the countryside protected ie  when is enough enough. Rather Mr Boles and his colleagues have simplified the planning rules from a document several thousand pages in length to one that is fifty pages in length, removing much environmental and wildlife protection, in order to encourage the destruction of our countryside. Now all large developments have to be judged via a 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' with 'sustainable' defined as, you guessed it, a bit of infrastructure bunged on the side.

The problem with planning and development in Colchester doesn't stop with the countryside either. While I, and the Green Party, fully support the building of homes on brownfield sites, the kind of homes being built in our town are too often inappropriate and more about developers' profits than quality. Massive ugly boxes with no gardens and no green areas are precisely the reason why so many people object to new developments being dumped on them. For example:

The ugly modern block of flats above was plonked on the end of Maldon Road against the wishes of many of the residents. It looms over the Victorian terraces around it and bears no similarity to neighboring buildings. Another example:

This is part of the new Brook Street development and is a typical of modern housing. Not a row of small affordable houses and bungalows with decent gardens but rather massive three-storey boxes built to maximise profits with tiny gardens and little green space for children to enjoy.

No wonder people object to such developments cropping up next to them.

As I see it there needs to be a complete turnaround from the current direction of travel that development in and around Colchester is taking and only the election of Green Party candidates can bring about that change. It is true that Colchester Lib Dem MP Bob Russell has a very good record as far as fighting inappropriate developments are concerned. However his party nationally, as well as the Conservatives, are responsible for the very planning reforms which are actually encouraging those developments. The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives who dominate Colchester Borough Council have a much poorer record on standing up against urban sprawl and countryside destruction. In addition, Bernard Jenkin, Conservative MP for north Essex, recently stated:

"Where housing development is to support funding for infrastructure we have got to be more open-minded. For example the A120 west of Colchester..."

In other words all a developer needs to do is promise to upgrade the roads nearby a bit or build a primary school and Mr Jenkin will support their massive urban spawl proposals.
As for the Labour Party, their stated aim nationally is to massively increase house building and I have yet to read or hear of any suggestion that environmental considerations permeate any of their thinking.

The simple fact is that only the Green Party has ecological concerns woven into its very political DNA. Colchester Green Party believes that housing developments should be on brownfield sites not over our countryside and wildlife habitats. If you are a Conservative or Lib Dem voter worried about potential green field developments next to you, then the only power you have over the coalition is to take their votes away. You can be sure that if elected to Colchester Borough Council I would fight the imposition of massive developments on green field sites tooth and nail, no ifs and no buts. Furthermore there will be no hypocrisy in terms of my position locally on issues and my position nationally. I think most people are fed up with the kind of politicians who oppose developments locally, or the closing of local hospitals, while happily trotting into the House of Commons and voting for the very national policies which facilitate such developments and closures. The only alternative is to vote Green.

Furthermore, The Green Party position on housing is to prioritise the building of affordable homes over the construction of massive expensive carbuncles. Brownfield sites in Colchester should not be wasted on massive houses, luxury 'apartments' or frivolous follys such as Firstsite. Colchester needs affordable homes, backed up with rent capping to ensure that all people get access to housing.

Changing Perceptions: Living Weedkiller Free

Its that time of year again when commercial TV is full of adverts for weedkillers. Sprays that make your lawn 'lush and green', stuff that kills the weeds with one spot. you know the kind of ads I mean. You probably also know the cheery songs and jovial voice overs that accompany them. All of which is designed to persuade us that weedkillers are nice, useful things and weeds are evil entities which blight your perfect lawn or drive.
In reality weedkillers are poisons designed to kill plants. Herbicides. The more effective they are, the more poisonous and potentially dangerous they are in turn. They are like any pesticides in that they can have highly harmful side effects on humans if not used very carefully. These effects are outlined in several useful books on the subject, however the best in my view is "Poisoned Harvest : A Consumer's Guide to Pesticide Use & Abuse" by Christopher Robbins.

However the deeper issue here is why people have become so obsessed with creating an artificial, sanitized environment around themselves and their children. Astro-turf lawns, weed-free patios, block paving... it all amounts to one thing, namely destroying the nature in your garden. What is needed is a reality check to all of this, a change in perception. Weeds are simply flowers that you don't have to fork out to buy. Is there really that much difference between a dandelion and a marigold apart from the price of the the latter? Surely a garden is more interesting when it has wildlife in it than blandness. Certainly more interesting for children. Here are my youtube videos on this subject: