>CE CHESHIRE TO 10,011 >CE "Where there is no vision the people perish" Proverbs 29 We comment on Cheshire 2011, the proposed Structure Plan revision. Because of human activity over the last 8000 years much harm has been inflicted on the planet for which we have responsibility. What of the next 8000? While Cheshire 2011 considers plans over the next decade, this must be put in context of the longer term - not to 2011 but to 10,011 A.D. We are setting the direction now for the next 8000 years. Never before has humankind had such an effect on the planet. For two reasons. First, our population is larger than ever before, so even if we, individually, had the same impact as we have always had, our cumulative effect would be today several times that of a mere 50 years ago. But, second, our individual effect has increased many times over, because of the amplification effect of our technology and because of our vastly increased expectations. That is why, for the first time in human history, our impact on the planetary systems is now noticeable - holes in ozone layer, global warming, deforestation, pollution of the seas even in unpopulated areas, and the rate of extinction of species has risen many thousands - some say millions - of times. We cannot, therefore, proceed as if nothing has changed. We need to take stock, after 8000 years of human history, of our responsibility over the next 8000. We have a responsibility to the planet, to future generations, and to our Creator. He said "I put you in charge of [all living beings]" (Genesis 1) "to tend and look after it" (Genesis 2). We all share that responsibility. The Structure Plan process gives County Councils the opportunity to be forward-looking. Compared with many in its time, the former Plan, Cheshire 2001, was in the vanguard of sustainability thinking. But many other U.K. councils have now moved ahead, and overtaken Cheshire, with the result that Cheshire 2011 can be seen as dragging its feet towards real sustainability. A recent Plan to which we draw attention is that by Hampshire, and the Transport section of Sheffield's Unitary Plan. Cheshire 2011 has objectives, but it does not have vision. We want Cheshire County Council to regain its place at the forefront of thinking on sustainability and biodiversity, and move forward with a bold vision of our exciting responsibility for the future. Appendices However, much of the real forward thinking is outside the U.K. To this end, we enclose excerpts, in Appendix 2, from or about the City of Davis, California, and Curitiba, Brazil, and a brief paper on sustainable cities by Herbert Girardet. These should be read as examples of forward-looking thinking about sustainability, and we commend many of these thoughts to the authors of Cheshire 2011 and the Inspector at the Examination in Public. We also include in Appendix 4 various texts from international bodies, including the notes of the 1956th E.U. Council Meeting, which contains material on sustainable development and biological diversity, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the United Nations Association Bio-Diversity Update. In Appendix 5 we include a copy of Biodiversity and Sustainable Development - A Perspective by Cllr. Armstrong-Braun. We ask that all the material in the Appendices be perused and that the thinking contained therein be incorporated into Cheshire 2011, as far as planning regulations and PPGs will allow. 1. GOOD POINTS # The Plan is less demand driven than previous plans. (But, though the wording is less demand driven, there is in some places still an underlying assumption that demand should be met - e.g. page 76.) # The explicit recognition of resource limitations, as indicated by the division into two parts, R and G, is to welcomed. This is, in our view, an excellent structure for a plan. (However, we suggest part 1 be re-titled 'Resources and Limitations' so that other limitations, not addressed, can be identified and explicitly addressed. See below.) # The Plan is starting to recognise the need to move traffic back to the rail system. 2. MAJOR WEAKNESSES # The major weakness is that there is very little on biodiversity, and even less on positively planning to develop and enhance biodiversity. It is vital that, on entering the 21st Century, we seek not only to preserve but also enhance biodiversity - which has been damaged by a century of industrialism and commercialism. Not only that, it is now legally required in plans. Biodiversity is more than 'heritage', a topic which is widely mentioned in the Plan. We discuss biodiversity below. # Another weakness is that proposed development allocations seemed to be geared toward attracting inward investment. As we discuss below, this has many detrimental effects, some long term, and uses good land in the process. The allocations for both industrial development and housing should be reduced, particularly for Vale Royal. # Some of the policies will actually work against the very objectives that are stated at the start of the document. # The consultation process. The fact that only 800 people or organisations took active part in the consultation process is disappointing. It goes against the principles of Agenda 21, which require greater participation by ordinary people in the planning process. The County should have been more proactive in not just seeking the views of people but in actually bringing people together to develop a common vision for the County. This has been undertaken by some Borough Councils (e.g. Vale Royal Borough Council aided Frodsham Town Council to a very successful consultation about the future of Frodsham) for small towns or parishes but there is no reason why it could not have been done to help people develop a common vision for the County as a whole. 3. BIODIVERSITY 3.1 Why biodiversity is important First, biodiversity is legally required of land use Plans. Second, biodiversity is the basis for the long-term health of the area. The larger the variety of natural species in an area the more balance can be kept and the more robust the ecosystem is. Third, biodiversity is important for the human soul. It might only be considered 'background', a stage on which human activity is played out, but it is an important background. Biodiversity - leading to the visual and aural presence of a wider variety of species of plant, animal, bird, etc. wherever we are - makes local walking more interesting. Fourth, biodiversity is a gift from our Creator, and it is an insult to Him to spurn or damage it, treating it as of little import. He will, one day, require an answer from us for the way we have stewarded what belongs to Him. 3.2 Why there is concern The British Trust for Ornithology recently (late 1996, early 1997) published the results of a study into bird populations in the U.K. It concluded that the populations of many species had falled drastically. For instance, the Song Thrush population is now only 50% of its former amount. Less well known species have suffered even more, with the Tree Sparrow population being reduced by 90%, to a mere 10% of its former size. The reasons are many, including farming practices, but also development and especially motorways that prevent the movement of wildlife that helps to re-invigorate damaged populations. A study of movements of a certain species of butterfly around the M56 once showed that, while they moved freely along the verge, only 7% managed to cross to the other side. The noise from motorways drowns out bird song in the many SSSIs they cut through or pass, lowering the efficiency of breeding. The use of pesticides has decimated insect populations, which form the food for Skylarks and others. Bats use hedges as a linear track to move between woods or food sources; if the hedge is destroyed or badly gapped then the bats have lost part of their movement system. 3.3 Biodiversity in the Plan There should be two angles on biodiversity in the Plan. The first is requies only a small addition to the Plan, to make explicit reference to the U.K. Biodiversity ActionPlan: e.g. "All plans for development must consider the accumulative impact of the development and this impact must meet the requirements of the U.K. Biodiversity Action Plan; no development can be seen in isolation." The second is both more far-reaching and also more beneficial to Cheshire as a whole in the long term. It involves recognising that our level of biodiversity has fallen drastically over the last decades and needs to be re-instated by deliberate, planned action. Biodiversity does not come about from simply planting hectares with trees or anything else; it has to be planned, carefully and knowledgeably. Therefore, while the Mersey Forest scheme has enormous potential, this potential could be wasted if the there is no pervading plan that has as a central aim the re-instatement of biodiversity into Cheshire. In particular, a biodiversity infrastructure should be planned and built up. A useful approach that has some merit is that pioneered in e.g. Czechoslovakia. It is centred around the concept of biocenoses and, in this context, means: a) the concept of biocenoses b) bio-centres c) wildlife corridors The concept of biocenoses is that each area of land has an inherent natural goal state and flora/fauna that depends on factors like soil, slope, rainfall, etc. This state is the goal towards which naturalization will tend to move; it is that combination of species with which the area is most in tune. While this approach has its limitations, knowledge of the 'natural' goal of each area can serve as a yardstick of 'naturalness'. Bio-centres act as havens and sources of wildlife, from which they can disperse to other land. They are of different sizes, local and regional. Regional bio-centres are large areas such as Delamere Forest. Local bio-centres are smaller, but must be viable - not much less than 1 sq km in extent and preferably larger. To ensure biodiversity, in any given area there should be several local bio-centres of differing types, in order that variety may be maintained. The type will depend on the soil, the lie of the land, the weather, and other factors. In the town, derelict land often affords important, albeit small, bio-centres. In rural areas, nature reserves, SSSIs, and other designated sites can obviously be important bio-centres. Such "characteristic habitats", as the Environmental Appraisal names them in its objectives should, of course, be strongly protected from development - and from anything else that might damage them. But this is far too limited for two reasons. One is that if such a habitat becomes damaged then it loses is "characteristic" and thus falls out of protection. (So we object to the first objective of the Environmental Appraisal.) The other is that there are, or should be, a myriad of smaller, undesignated sites which should form the bulk of the Cheshire stock of bio-centres. While special sites are important, we should learn to live with nature as the rule rather than the exception. See Sensitive Integration and Environmentally Sensitive Integration sections in Appendix 1. 3.4 The need to plan biodiversity Just as we plan shopping centres, so it is important to plan bio-centres, knowledgeably. There should be a mix in any area. Each bio-centre should be such as to work with, rather than against, the fundamental features of the land it is on (soil, weather, etc.). Some bio-centres exist, and are healthy; the policy should be to protect and enlarge and enrich these. Secondly, some bio-centres exist but are in a parlous state; the policy here should be for repair. Thirdly, some bio-centres are missing altogether, and the policy here should be to create new ones. (Whether a bio-centre is 'missing' is indicated by considering the current mix and what the land around would naturally support, and also from historical records.) (This implies a need for a study of Cheshire to survey the bio-centres and their quality and state, and to identify missing ones.) Wildlife corridors are pieces of habitat that connect bio-centres to each other and connect other land to bio-centres. They allow wildlife to move around. Not only animals but, more slowly, plants too. Streams often make valuable corridors when they are lined with trees and bushes. Large open spaces do not. What is known as Greenways is of this sort. But the corridors should link actual bio-centres, not just form a network. If they merely formed a network, without bio-centres, there would be no 'pools' of species to move along the corridors. Planning wildlife corridors should take into account existing and planned or potential bio-centres, and should aim, in a similar fashion to the policy on bio-centres, to strengthen what exists and to create what does not but is needed. Urban biodiversity is a major problem. The policy should be to extend corridors as 'fingers' into all urban areas, and in many cases these will have to be created. Derelict land and back gardens are of some value, but no derelict land should be removed without first considering its value as part of the wildlife corridor network. Note that green areas ('green streets') e.g. well-kept parkland and playing fields are NOT wildlife friendly and thus cannot act as corridors. While they might have an aesthetic or recreational function they have little with regard to biodiversity. They should therefore be discounted in planning for biodiversity - unless useful wildlife-friendly habitat can be introduced into these areas, e.g. along their edges. The City of Davis, California, has explored the idea of corridors (which they call Greenways); see Appendix 2. 4. RESOURCES AND LIMITATIONS The part of the Plan headed Resources is good, in that it draws attention to resource limitations. However we suggest that there are other limitations that should be taken into account while planning that are not strictly resource limitations. One such is global responsibility. Even though Cheshire is part of the U.K., it still has a share of responsibility to the world as a whole, albeit a Cheshire-sized share. This responsibility should be explicitly addressed in the Plan, in Part 1. Some aspects of this responsibility are discussed in Appendix 1 under the heading Global Responsibility. We also, therefore, suggest that the first part of the Plan be re-named 'Resources and Limitations'. 5. ON INWARD INVESTMENT Inward investment is perceived by the authors of the Plan to be a Good Thing. But it is not. Alex Duval Smith, writing in the Guardian 30.10.96, pointed out clearly some of the problems with inward investment policies. He focused on the fact that the local community becomes dependent on the large employer, who then can suddenly let the community down by moving its investment elsewhere in the world. He quotes a JVC official as saying, about production of audio products, "All production is going back to the Far East." The same principle applies to all inward investment: it can engender an unhealthy dependency on an organisation that has little inherent loyalty to the community and is likely to prove an unstable partner in the future. Other problems of inward investment are that the profits created on Cheshire land leave Cheshire, flowing out into some multi-national or national company, and impoverishing the local economy in the long term. The incoming company can often undercut local enterprises, not on the basis of fair competition but on the basis of favourable treatment for land and development application agreement. In some cases the incoming company acts in a bullying manner, making threats to the local authorities or other local bodies in order to get its way. The destruction of our town centre economies can be seen in this light: large, chain companies have been given special treatment of out-of-centre allocations near motorways, and so in-town and more local enterprises have closed down. Everything is at a price: inward investment should be treated as a high-interest loan, for which we will have to be paying back many years to come, not only in actual finance but also in the disruption caused and the need to overcome it. Instead of inward investment, there should be positive encouragement of small, local businesses, and positive discrimination against the incoming chain or multi-national organisations. 6. HOUSING AND ACCOMMODATION It is unsustainable to allocate more and more land for housing and accommodation with each new revision of the Plan. After a number of such revisions the whole of Cheshire will have been built upon! There must come a point at which we re-think the whole housing concept - and that point is NOW. 6.1 Increasing density of development One way of tackling the problem is to aim for increasing density of development. With increasing density, all Cheshire's accomodation needs can be developed within existing developed land by recycling, renovating and by building mixed types of accomodation, especially terraced houses and European style accomodation. These are of higher density and thus require less land per 1000 people. A good example of high quality, high density style is at Ruthnergasse A-1210, Vienna. (Three circular blocks of 6-storey accomodation, sloping in shape and well landscaped, with walkways, small shops, and the removal of cars to periphery.) This style of development is not, of course, suited to all areas, notably the rural areas. But in these, there should be more emphasis on terraced houses. Cheshire Rural Voice has made a call for more terraced houses, for reasons of more frugal land use, more frugal energy requirments, and better community activity. They are also natural starter homes that cannot simply increase out of their starting value. 6.2 Scattered proportional development If we are to develop sustainable communities then there are three problems to avoid in placing accomodation. One is the large new estate or new town. A second is the imbalancing of a fragile community by adding onto it a block of housing - whether a small village or a part of a town that has started to develop its own community, character, morale and feel. The third is the 'executive close' which emphasises separation of newcomers from current residents - which is socially detrimental. Therefore we suggest a policy of what might be called scattered proportional development. The concept is that, in each and every 100 houses we allow 1 new one to be built per year (or some suitable figures). Not 10 in 1000, because these might form an 'executive close'. Not 1000 in 100,000, because these would form a new estate or town. Not 10 in 100 over 10 years, since these would form an executive close. By '1 new one' we do not mean one dwelling but rather a single house-building. So, it could be one detached house, one pair of semidetached houses, or one short terrace. Such a policy would have the following advantages: # As mentioned, it would reduce the impact of 'slam-it-in' development. # It is relatively easy for all to understand. # It is general, and seen to be 'fair'. # It encourages integration of new stock with existing. # It would suit the smaller, more local building firm. # It would focus the attention of planning committees more precisely on the contextualisation of the development. # It would be an active encouragement to the development of terraced houses, which have many advantages in terms of energy efficiency, land use efficiency and lower cost. # It would be relatively easy to enforce. (Of course, various complicating factors could be worked out. But we believe the idea merits serious consideration.) 6.3 'Where shall we live?' As the Secretary of State for the Environment has recently pointed out, the stark challenge before us is that we need to change our lifestyles if we are not to require a huge increase in accommodation for new households as, for instance, families split up and each half-family 'demands' a separate house. Let us consider this single issue as an example of the more general issue of lifestyle. The HBF and others find it convenient to assume that we will not change our lifestyles, because they will profit from building all these new houses. But we believe that there is no need to plan for such a large increase, because recent evidence suggests that the trend will slow down: (a) People are becoming increasingly aware that lifestyle is an important planning issue, that lifestyle has an influence on our use of resources. (b) There is growing public debate about, and recognition of, the fact that our erstwhile permissive lifestyles have led us into a blind alley as far as much of the quality of life is concerned. (Quality of Life is a major factor in the Main Objectives.) (c) We can therefore expect at least some change in lifestyle that leads to a slow-down in the rate of increase in accommodation needed. Further, we believe it would be detrimental to the future quality of life of people in Cheshire to plan for a more liberal supply of houses, because it would encourage an increasing rate of family breakdown: (a) If it is perceived to be easier to obtain a new house for half of the family that leaves, then there is more incentive in a proportion of us to leave and less incentive to work harder at keeping the family together. (We have seen a similar effect with the traffic-generation effect of road building over the last few decades.) (b) Contrariwise, if it perceived as hard to obtain a new house to move into then, for a significant proportion of us, there is a greater incentive to work at keeping the family together. This is, overall, to the benefit of Cheshire's future, including quality of life, which is a major objective of the Plan. (c) If the Plan allocates a large area for new housing, then many more new houses will be built and this will make it easier for people to obtain new houses. (d) Therefore a larger allocation of housing will contribute to an increased rate of family breakdown in Cheshire in the future, while a smaller allocation will contribute to helping Cheshire's families stay together. We are not right-wingers - see below, on curbs! We are not suggesting that there should be an unfeeling, strong clamp-down, and understand that for a proportion of people this kind of incentive mechanism does not work. But it does work for a significant number of the population, and this fact should be taken seriously when considering the allocation of housing. 6.5 Other issues Now, let us widen the issues. The same thinking applies. The Secretary of State, in his foreword to Household Growth: Where shall we live?, said "The extended family has become the exception in Britain. However much we may deplore how generations live aprat, we have not sought to encourage anything different." He also says, "At the other end of the scale there is a second change. Young people are leaving home earlier." Then he refers to the issue we discussed above: "Even more influential has been the increasing rate of marriage break up. .. When a husband and wife split up they often seek accommodation of much the same size as that to which they are accustomed." Thus, we have at least three issues related to the provision of housing allocation: family breakdown, younger people leaving home and the elderly living apart. We are saying here that the level of housing allocation can be either an 'encouragement' or discouragement to lifestyles that we consider healthy, because it reduces or increases the ease with which new, separately occupied housing is available. A larger allocation tends to the breakdown and breakup of families, whether between husband and wife, between young people and parents, or between the elderly and their adult children. The Secretary of State make clear, "It is however necessary for us all to face up to the cumulative environmental impact of the way in which we have each chosen to live." And this Plan must take its share of "facing up" to such responsibilities by not making it even easier for us to make the more damaging choices. 6.6 Curbs There are many of us who WANT some curbs on our freedom because they help us keep to the lifestyle choices that we know are healthier and strengthen our resolve to do so. There are three types of curb: authoritarian, resource-led and relational. a) Authoritarian curbs are imposed by some authority (e.g. laws) and seem beloved of the right-wing - but they are seen as arbitrary by many of the population, and, while law has some valid part to play, we do not advocate such measures here. b) Resource-led curbs come about because there is a limitation of resources. Such curbs are more accepted by people, and people tend to make the best of the limiting situation. c) Relational curbs come about because the actions of one person or organisation affects others and results in limitations of their activity. What we do has an effect. Housing allocation is a resource-led curb. The benefit we have here is that it is the most acceptable of the curbs, and works best. The Plan should therefore use it, and boldly reduce the housing allocation, for the good of the people of Cheshire and their future. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL While we applaud the work that has gone into the Environmental Appraisal, and while we recognise it is a relatively new exercise with few precedents, we find it has many flaws. We object to the content and the form of the environmental appraisal, the content in that many adverse impacts are down-played or ignored, and the form in that the Plan needs to show the impact per policy. Much more understanding is needed of impacts, especially indirect ones. Some of the flaws we have identified include: # No mention of impact on humans as biological beings (and also social) # Wrong Objective 1: This objective is too protective in tone, and liable to be counter-productive, as discussed in our section on Biodiversity. # Wrong Objective 6: To reduce rate of consumption etc. omits rate of consumption or depletion of biomass. # Missing objective: To reduce unnecessary consumption. John Gummer. UNED Conference. Need to change our lifestyle. So there should be an additional objective and criterion, namely to what extent each policy will exacerbate or ameliorate the problem of wasteful lifestyles and habits. # There are some elements in the EA that we do not accept (particularly some of the negative impacts are missing, wrongly classified as neutral). We would be willing to discuss these details when necessary. # It seems that the EA has only looked at an activity in regard to its direct, isolated impact. However, many of the real problems are longer term, being either indirect or accumulative. e.g. IND9 (Regional Warehouse, etc.) has some effect on: quality of life, air quality, water, minerals, waste, energy, biodiversity, but these have all been classed as neutral impact. Most of these impacts are indirect, though they are still clear. We ask that all impacts be re-assessed to take indirect and accumulative impacts into account. Four of the most important indirect impacts come from generated traffic (especially when measured in person-miles rather than in journeys) and from the construction of the buildings, loss of wildlife habitat, and severing of wildlife corridors. Another indirect impact is the change in lifestyles, aspirations and expectations a development engenders. (These flaws show that the authors do not yet possess a full understanding of the interactions between human activities and the surrounding biosystem. We would be willing to help improve this Environmental Assessment if called upon to do so.) We also ask that the environmental assessment for each policy be recorded with each policy, rather than in a summary to each section. We suggest that this be done by displaying at the bottom of the page for each policy the row of ticks and crosses found in the E.A. document. With an appropriate key this should not take up much space, and would give much more information. (Note that the recent Warrington Borough Plan reported the E.A. for each policy.) 8. COMMENTS ON INDIVIDUAL POLICIES Page 15 re. PPG15: "Sustainable economic growth" is a contradiction in terms, and should not appear in this Plan since it gives a misleading impression and is likely to raise false expectations. (The only way in which economic growth can be "sustainable", that is sustained indefinitely, is to create sustained inflation; in real terms economic growth cannot be sustained indefinitely. And any attempt to achieve this leads merely to human activity being transferred from the voluntary, informal economy to the formal one.) While we agree that there can be sustainable economic activity, this is not necessarily growth in any simple sense. We ask that this phrase be removed. R 3: Add: "WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD CAUSE LOSS OF WILDLIFE CORRIDORS (GREENWAYS) THEN THE DEVELOPMENT MUST BE CHANGED SO AS TO ENCOMPASS THE CORRIDOR, NOT VICE VERSE." Reason: Example as given above: Bats use hedges as a linear track to move between woods or food sources; if the hedge is destroyed or badly gapped then the bats have lost part of their movement system. R 3: Add: "ANY PERSON OR DEVELOPER WISHING TO REMOVE PART OR WHOLE OF A HEDGE MUST CONTACT THE COUNTY CONSERVATIONIST TO: (1) CHECK WHETHER THE HEDGE IS REGISTERED UNDER THE ENCLOSURE OR OTHER ACT (2) IS OF HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE (3) IS OF CONSERVATION IMPORTANCE FOR PROTECTED SPECIES SPECIFIED UNDER U.K. HABITAT REGULATIONS OR OTHER CRITERIA." R 3: Add: "ALL DEVELOPMENTS IN OPEN COUNTRYSIDE MUST FIT IN WITH THE MORPHOLOGY OF THE AREA, INCLUDING CONTOURS." R 14: Add at end of first paragraph: "THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO PROVE THE NEED, REGIONALLY AND NATIONALLY, FOR THE EXTRACTION." R 14: Add "IF THE SITE IS HABITAT FOR E.U. PROTECTED SPECIES AND NO PROPER MITIGATION MEASURES CAN BE IMPLEMENTED TO MAINTAIN THE SPECIES IN THEIR NATURAL STATE, THEN THE APPLICATION WILL BE REFUSED." R 19: We object to R 19 and want it deleted. Reasons: (1) It gives an excuse to do nothing. (2) There will be continuous leaching from the site. (3) Rubbish and odours and eyesore will occur over a long period. (4) It is not necessary to find landfill sites, being only slightly more expensive to use other means for handling waste. GEN 2: Add new bullet: "NOT CAUSE ANY DETRIMENT TO BIODIVERSITY." GEN 2: Add: "WHERE A DEVELOPMENT WILL IMPROVE THE CHARACTER AND BIODIVERSITY OF GREENBELT (E.G. REMOVAL OF ECOLOGICALLY-VALUELESS DERELICT BUILDING) THEN IT MAY BE ALLOWED." Reason: Much green belt washes over derelict land or buildings. GEN 3: See in GEN 6. GEN 5: All developments should contribute to the stock of wildlife habitats using indigenous species. Especially should enhance or introduce wildlife corridors. GEN 6: We object to the wording and want the clause deleted. It seems deliberately worded loosely to allow green belt removal around Chester, especially Wrexham Road for new roads and business parks and housing as is included in the draft Chester Local Plan. ** We object strongly to this sneaky tactic, of proposing something in a local plan that goes against the current County Plan and then proposing changes in this new County Plan that will retrospectively allow the changes in the local plan. We make this objection wherever it applies in the whole Plan. ** We also object strongly to policies being included in the County Plan that are aimed at allowing specific developments or for political reasons. Such policies are dangerous and lead to unforeseen consequences. This happened in Cheshire 2001, with a policy specifically and politically aimed at allowing development at Cheshire Oaks. Under this policy Marks and Spencer argued to be allowed to develop a site north of Warrington, which has - in spite of promise to the contrary - harmed their site in Warrington Centre, and the whole development north of Warrington has harmed the centre and caused extra traffic usage by pandering to the fashion for car-borne shopping. We make this objection wherever it applies in the whole Plan. GEN 6 contd.: We want the green belt policy GEN 3 to be applied and GEN 6 to be deleted entirely. Further, the proposed policy conflicts with the existing Plan, with the Secretary of State's previous ruling and with High Court Decision. A wording could be added to GEN 3 to mention the importance of Cheshire's historic setting and the importance of maintaining it thus. The policy would allow the near-merging of Welsh settlements. GEN missing: Should have clause to upgrade biodiversity, along the lines discussed above. GEN8 (Community Woodlands) is not enough. GEN10 is too protective in tone; we need a clause aimed deliberately at building up and improving biodiversity in Cheshire and the surrounding area, not just preventing yet more damage. IND 1: We object to the 85 ha allocation for Chester. It is already over-supply for its requirements, its historic setting protection, and traffic capacity. Past policies of this kind are causing grid-locking in the Sealand basin and Wrexham Road, and the answer is not to build yet more road but to ensure policies will REDUCE traffic rather than increase it. As we object above, the allocation involves rolling back the green belt. IND 1: We object to the concept in the Vale Royal section of an apparent "need to stimulate economic growth". Seeking to "attact businesses" is not the answer to the commuting status of Northwich and Winsford. See our section on Inward Investment. The problem lies deeper, in the messy planning of these towns - especially Winsford - in earlier decades. To "attract" a lot of incoming business just at the time when the communities are starting to settle down after the disruption of those years is to re-open a wound. Instead, there should be a policy of CONSOLIDATION and the GRADUAL encouragement of SMALL, LOCAL businesses. IND 1: We therefore object to the 200 ha allocation to Vale Royal. The proposed allocation will not help local people. IND 1: We object to the large allocation for Crewe and Nantwich. Reason: hypocrisy! This allocation will only make the problem in Vale Royal worse. Currently, many in Vale Royal commute to Crewe and Nantwich. If the reason for a large allocation in Vale Royal is because "Many Vale Royal residents commute to jobs outside the Borough" then allocating 110 ha to Crewe will only make matters worse, as yet more 'jobs' are created on its doorstep. If the County is serious about reducing the commuting flow out of Vale Royal then it should NOT make such large allocations so near Vale Royal. IND 1: We object to the Barford Hall allocations as the area is one of beautiful landscape and high grade agricultural land still in use. The allocation would merge several villages into an urban sprawl. IND 1: We object to the huge allocation (200 ha plus Omega Site) for Warrington. The allocation of industrial land should not be 'demand led' nor speculative. Yet the reasons given, that Warrington is on the so-called West Coast Spine and the Mersey Belt. These two linear features should be protected from destructive development rather than opened up to it. The fact that these two linear features happen to be defined by motorways means that more development therein will mean more and more traffic along these motorways. This goes against current thinking, and especially the new Road Traffic Reduction Bill. Moreover, Warrington has had huge development in recent decades, and needs a period of consolidation. The development has not helped Warrington economically; unemployment is still high there. Warrington Borough has too little agricultural and wildlife-rich land as it is, and all of it should be protected. IND 1: We object to the Omega Site at Warrington not being included in the land allocation. It should be included as part of the allocation. And then other sites will not be needed. IND 1: We object to the total industrial land allocation in IND 1 as (1) It is unsustainable and will mean loss of that finite resource, good land; the Plan should adhere to the guidelines of sustainable development as contained in Agenda 21. (2) It is far above the average shown of 69 ha per annum. (3) It is a speculative allocation that will not materialize. (4) Rather, it will simply harm Cheshire communities even further. (5) It is too large an allocation to be filled from local business activity, and will thus attract harmful inward investment; see our section on Inward Investment. We cannot give a figure for reduction at this point. IND GENERAL: In line with the reduced allocations in IND 1 there will need to be alterations to many other IND policies. We therefore ask that this be done. e.g. Chester, Basford, Crewe, Northwich. IND 1: Add: "ONLY COMPANIES WHICH CAN PROVE HIGH DENSITY USE WILL BE ALLOWED." IND 1 AND GENERAL: See our section on Economics in Appendix 1. Economics is not the final goal, nor is it the all-answering solution to our problems. Giving such over emphasis to economic-financial-industrial criteria merely makes many problems worse. IND 2: Should encourage a small amount of small, sensitive industrial development in residential areas, for the sake of sustainability of the communities. But these should not be transport nor materials intensive enterprises. e.g. Start-up information-based industries that do not involve much car travel nor visitors should be allowed in residential areas. IND 4: Excellent policy. But remove "as well as to the principal road network" because (a) It is unnecessary, because all developments will wish for this and do not need to be told to require it. (b) There is the danger that the phrase could be counterproductive to the intention of the plan. e.g. It could be used against a good application that is close to rail or water but happens not to be close to the principal road network, and does not need to be, but is rejected because it is not. (c) The intention of the policy is served at least as well without the phrase. Brevity is always a good thing. IND 5,6: Add a requirement that the developments will not generate much road use. IND 6: Replace the words "nearby dwellings or a farm of other building complex" by "NEARBY AN EXISTING DWELLING OR WITHIN A FARM OR OTHER BUILDING COMPLEX." Reason: PPG Advice 1996. IND 10: We object to the inclusion of Chester. Page 69: While there is a general reduction from the 2001 figures, Vale Royal is the exception, with an actual increase. Why is this? The large scale dumping of housing into Northwich/Winsford will be disastrous. It will do nothing to really solve the problems those towns and mid Cheshire have; indeed it will exacerbate them. See Mid Cheshire below. HOU OVERALL: We object to the use of the word 'housing' since what people need is good accomodation and this can be provided in many forms, including, among other things, apartments and canal boats. HOU 1: We object to, and seriously question the housing figures. See our section on Housing and Accommodation. We object to the use of 'regional housing figures'. These are only guesswork and differ greatly from the DoE's figures. Regional Planning Guidance does not supersede PPGs nor DoE statistics, and has no legal effect. Therefore we give no credence to its conclusions. The regional figures are too heavily influenced by interested parties like the HBF, and arise from doubtful methods of analysis. Also, we understand that the regional Estate Agents were not consulted; they should have been, and the DoE has confirmed to us that their views are important in calculating accommodation figures. The Estate Agents consistently state that it is rental accommodation and apartments that are required, not yet more new houses. The statement by John Gummer of 4.25 million households has been mis-interpreted by the housebuilders to suggest that 4.25 million new homes are needed. We contacted the DoE who confirmed that this does NOT mean 4.25 million new homes. Because, with various increased densities and different types of accommodation, more than one household can inhabit one 'home'. Note that it was established during the recent Public Inquiry into the Crewe and Nantwich Plan that the demands made by the HBF and others was purely for speculative reasons, and to entice immigration from outside. HOU OVERALL: We object to the projected graph for 1996 being shown as increasing, when in fact it is flat. HOU 1: We object to the huge allocation for Vale Royal. It is disastrous for the local community and the countryside into which it will be put. It is not unaminously supported within Vale Royal, and indeed two years ago it was reported that it was the Chief Executive, W. Woods, not the whole Council, who wanted a large input of housing into Vale Royal. This ill-conceived dream of a few people should not be given official recognition in a County Plan. There is no evidence that this level of allocation is needed for local demand, which it must be, in accordance with PPG 1, 3, 12 and in order to be in line with the Rio Summit agreement. The population of Vale Royal is not going to increase by this amount by its own growth. We ask that the allocation be reduced by at least 40%. HOU 1: We also object to the allocation in Crewe and Nantwich. The allocation would destroy Nantwich, and especially the ancient settlement there, on which the allocation has been sited. HOU OVERALL: In the light of the above, we object to any new greenfield land being allocated to 'housing'. HOU MISSING: We object to the omission of an aim of increased density of development from the Plan. See the section on Housing and Accommodation. HOU 2,3: We ask that the principle of scattered proportional development be written into these policies, as outlined in our section on Housing and Accommodation. There should be no large sites. HOU 6: We object to the wording, and want it reworded as: "NEW BUILDINGS ... WITHIN EXISTING FARMS AND OLDER BUILDING COMPLEXES." Reason: To accord with PPG 1, 3, 12, to avoid development expansion into open countryside. (View confirmed verbally with DoE, London.) HOU 8: We agree with this overall, but ask that it be worded to adopt the principle of scattered proportional development, as outlined in our section on Housing and Accommodation. HOU 9: We object to this. It has happened that gypsies granted land for development then sold out to the housebuilders, with the result that the planning system was perversely circumvented. We want a distinction be placed in this policy, to avoid confusion and unscrupulous people claiming to be gypsies. Page 76: We should NOT respond to, nor plan for, "substantially higher consumer spending". This is one place where the Plan is still too demand driven. "Substantially higher consumer spending" is (a) unproven (b) nnecessary (c) dangerous and detrimental. See the section on Economics. T 2: At first sight, very good, since it prevents a housing estate blocking an old railway line - as has happened too often - and preventing its re-opening as a railway. But it has a dangerous loophole in allowing re-use of railway infrastructure for unspecified "transport purposes". For instance, it would allow a railway line to be turned into a road, which is the opposite of what is needed. And, we understand, against the intention of PPG 12,13. The important thrust of the policy is to protect rail trackbed for possible future re-opening as railway, so why not say so in the policy? But, someone might argue, if it is used as a road, it could then be made back into a railway line. Not so. First, there would be huge political obstacles, as the road lobby at that time would strongly resist. Second, physical obstacles might be created, in that roads have steeper gradients, and the erstwhile trackbed might be altered to include steep gradients. Third, it is often that case that 'swaps' are made; for instance, allowing a piece of the trackbed-turned-into-road to be developed in exchange for another strip of land along which the road could be re-routed. That would prevent its re-use as a railway. It is better to prevent it being turned into a road in the first place. The wording needs to be changed to exclude the use of rail trackbed for roads. (If the wording is a deliberate political ploy of those who wish to find all and any means of building more roads, then this is despicable. A County Plan should be as open, honest as possible, with wording that backs up what is best for the county and the future.) We would be happy with the use of railway as a cycle way - so long as it can still be made back into a railway when and if that is desirable. That means that its status must not be changed from (potential) railway to cycle way, even though its interim use might change. Because, for instance, if it is changed in status then development might be allowed that would reduce its width to less than 2 metres - which would prevent it being later used as a railway. So, to conclude, all railway trackbed should retain its status as railway, and no development should be allowed that will damage that status. However, its temporary, interim use could change. T 5: In rural areas, there should not just be "the development of safe cycle and pedestrian routes" but rather a prevention of safety levels falling on current rural roads. We are concerned about the growth of car-oriented leisure facilities in rural areas (e.g. golf courses) which attract a lot of traffic onto roads which have until now been relatively quiet and safe for cyclists and pedestrians. We do not want a tiny fraction of Cheshire's rural roads ear-marked as 'safe routes', with the majority being allowed to become less safe. What we want is that the majority remain as safe as they were before the current craze for golf courses started. This policy, while perhaps well-meaning, is mis-directed. T 6: While we applaud the inclusion of rail schemes on an equal footing with road schemes, we strongly object to all proposed road schemes, and want them deleted. Reason: New major road schemes are environmentally and socially detrimental in the longer term and generate new traffic in both short and long term, which only makes matters worse. See Transport section of Appendix 1. T 7: This policy is not sufficiently positive towards freight by rail. The amount of freight moved by rail has increased by 300% since privatisation. While such growth cannot be sustained indefinitely, it indicates the potential there is - even with the current incentives for road freight - for a move back to rail freight. See the EWS brochure. Because the potential is there, it should be encouraged, not held back. T 10: Remove from the policy the words "for a new crossing of the River Mersey". Then the policy will be usefully generalized to allow consideration of ANY type of scheme to relieve traffic problems on the Runcorn-Widnes Bridge. (Incidentally, it was gross stupidity to build the Widnes Bypass to funnel and focus yet more traffic onto an already congested bridge. But since the stupid road has been built, we have to manage the consequences - and that does NOT mean just succumb to the 'demand'.) First, the Bridge should NOT be seen as "an important link between the M56 and M62". So also remove from these words from the explanation. In these days it is necessary to reduce the attractiveness of road transport, not increase it. We should be reducing the amount of traffic that needs or wants to go between M56 and M62. There is already the Thelwell viaduct, recently widened, so there is no need for this link. Second, one valid use of the Bridge is to allow transport between Liverpool and Chester/Wales. But there is already a perfectly sound, and underused, railway bridge to relieve the road traffic. The policy should actively encourage promoting use of the rail route. Third, there are other schemes that can help relieve traffic on the bridge, which are aimed at reducing the need to travel across the Mersey. For instance, any development that tends to centralise local resources in either Runcorn or Widnes (and removing them from the other) should be disallowed. Any development that helps to duplicate resources so they appear in each should be encouraged (subject, of course, to other policies). T 14: There should be plans to route railway directly into Liverpool airport. Preferably by taking the current railway south of Speke, through the airport. The North West Rail Users' Group have made a study of this and shown its feasibility. T GENERAL: While the Transport section is better than previous versions, it still does not give enough explicit encouragement to a move to cycling as a major form of transport, especially for short journeys. a) We want specific policy measures towards this end, including a commitment to improve facilities all over Cheshire for cycling and walking. b) We also want specific commitment to developing systems of cycleways in all Cheshire's towns, that are of sufficient density to have the 'critical mass' needed to encourage people out of their cars and onto bicycles. Cheshire is a flat county, and many of its towns - such as Warrington - are flat, and admirably suited to cycling. See the section Warrington Cycle Town in Appendix 1 for an example of the type of thinking we envisage. We are gratified that Warrington Borough Council responded in a positive way to this, and has devised a system of cycle routes around the town. (Development of plans for cycle routes is also required by the DoE - and for that reason alone should be included in this Plan.) c) One important aspect of encouraging cycling is to build a cycling culture. Well, Crewe already has this, but it is under threat. There should be a specific policy of protecting and upholding and re-invigorating the cycling culture in Crewe. While much of this will be outside the remit of a land-use Plan, much is inside its remit, such as giving specific encouragement to cycle-related developments and specific prohibition of any development that would not only damage the physical infrastructure for cycling but also the social infrastructure (e.g. any development that would substitute car use for cycle use). The Sheffield Unitary Plan's section on Transport, included in Appendix 3, is much better than Cheshire 2011 on cycling. T GENERAL: Chester have not produced a traffic management plan, though they should have done so. Therefore there should be no extra bypasses or road extensions in Chester District until they have done this. We object to all such proposals, in whatever policy they occur and ask that they be deleted until such time as the required traffic management plan has been produced. T GENERAL: The recent Road Traffic Reduction Bill requires local plans to set targets for traffic reduction, and then to devise plans for traffic reduction. Many of these policies will not reduce it but will in fact increase it. We object to these, and ask that the Plan policies be re-thought in the light of the need to reduce traffic. T NEW POLICY: In the light of the new Road Traffic Reduction Bill, add: "ALL DISTRICT AND BOROUGH COUNCILS AND UNITARY AUTHORITIES WILL PRODUCE TRAFFIC REDUCTION TARGETS AND PLANS, AS REQUIRED THE ROAD TRAFFIC REDUCTION BILL, AND THESE WILL BE INTEGRATED BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL." TR WHOLE SECTION: Beware of the lure of 'income' and forgetting costs, especially of tourism. See the section Profits, not Income and following sectinos in Appendix 1. Costs should be made explicit, and should include both direct and indirect costs. TR 5: Add that rural roads should be kept free of new traffic, because many of Cheshire's rural roads are used for family cycling. They are perceived as safe at present, and this status should not be jeopardized. e.g. Golf courses attract and generate much extra traffic. While the 'carrying capacity' of the road might not be officially exceeded by this, it makes these roads unsafe for family cycling. For this reason, only recreation developments that do NOT generate traffic should be allowed. Golf course development should only be allowed in places where the traffic it generates will not be along rural roads. MISSING POLICY: No development should be allowed which, because of design or location, would cause soil erosion or landslides. >op APPENDIX 1 - EXCERPTS FROM COMMENTS ON WARRINGTON BOROUGH PLAN This Appendix contains some excerpts of comments made to Warrington Borough Council about their Consultation Draft Plan. Most have direct relevance to the Cheshire Plan, with names etc. suitably changed, because the principles covered remain important. TRANSPORT Road use is a problem Transport is a major issue since high road use is the single largest contributor to global warming. (While power stations contribute the largest amount of carbon dioxide, road transport also contributes nitrogen oxides and other pollutants, which makes it the largest contributor to global warming overall.) As outlined, for instance, in the Cheshire County Council's State of the Environment Project: Transport report, there are many other major problems stemming from high road use - personal, social, environmental, local, national, international and global. Some of the problems are due to actual use of cars and lorries, while others are due to road building. High road use works directly against the three stated Aims (however defined) of Warrington Borough Council. The quality of the local environment is severely damaged: damage to buildings and infrastructure, destruction of wildlife habitats and SSSIs, barriers to wildlife. A study of the M56 in Cheshire which showed that only 7% of marked Orangetip butterflies ever crossed the carriageway while they freely moved along the side of it (Source: Stephen Mills, New Scientist, 20th Feb 1986). It jeopardises creation of good quality jobs for Warrington people, in that easy entry to Warrington by road means that people from elsewhere can take Warrington jobs, and the higher quality jobs 'created' by the large incomer firms are often filled by people brought in. It severely damages quality of life: noise, pollution, fumes, more accidents, difficulty in walking or cycling around Warrington, reduction in mobility of the car-less, the deadening of community as fewer people walk and more people seldom see their neighbours as they drive out in the morning and back at night. It is recognised - ever more widely recognised - that urgent and concerted action needs to be taken to reduce the level of road use, and that land use planning has an important part to play in this. The link between land use and transport modes is now becoming abundantly clear. Indeed, the Panel of the Examination in Public of Cheshire 2001 seems to believe that Cheshire County Council should move faster in these matters even now. It has said, > ! L R "The implicit assumption in 'Cheshire 2001' that the use of the car will inevitably grow is also one which may seem less obviously true in the latter part of the Plan period than it does today. We suggest that this assumption should be re-examined ..." >----!----!----!----!-----------------------------------------R We have to reverse a trend that has built up over the past few decades, and that will be no easy job. During this period it has been assumed that it is everybody's right to own and use a car or lorry and go where he pleases and as free from inconvenience and congestion as he wishes. An example of this can be found in policy TCS 3 of the draft Plan, where it acquiesces to "strong consumer demand for bulk car-borne shopping." People's habits have changed in response to the ease of road use. There have been economic incentives for road use, such as company cars and externalising of the costs of such things as road accidents (for which the NHS pays an annual bill of five billion pounds, to say nothing of the lost production and disruption to family life that these accidents cause). How can we reverse this trend? First, while some of these factors are outwith the remit of a Local Plan, the Plan can make an important contribution either to exacerbate the problem or to ameliorate it. Second, if Borough and County Councils are seen to be trying to ameliorate the problems and actively resisting the trend to ever higher road use, then central Government will gradually take note - as indicated by the Department of Environment Inspector's comments above. Indeed they are taking note, as evidenced by the stated aim of reducing global warming emissions to the level that pertained in 1990. We discuss its implications below. The aim of the Warrington Plan should therefore be twofold. To reduce total transport and to cause a shift toward more ecologically sustainable forms of transport - walking, cycling, trains, water and bus. While overtly transport policies are important, other sections of the Plan probably have greater effect, albeit indirect as outlined in 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 below. In our comments , we deliberately take a hard line on the issue of road use because it is necessary to reverse - not just slow down - the trend to increasing road use. And, given people's current penchant for using their cars without thinking, there is a need to give them clear incentives for changing their habits. Wrong Positioning Generates Traffic One of the mistakes of the past has been to to site facilities and developments in such a way that people are forced to use their cars. Until recently, there has been a tendency to zone types of development, and to encourage out-of-town retail and business developments. This has been a major mistake. In future there should be more integration of different land use types, instead of the zoning that has been the norm for the last few decades. So people should find it more feasible to walk to work, shops, school, etc. This means that employment and retail development should be welcomed, rather than prevented, in residential areas. And houses should be built in the town centre, and within such places as Birchwood shopping area, and so on. Of course, there are obvious problems with such an approach, but none that cannot be overcome with a little thought. And such an approach will yield other benefits, such as more sustainable communities and re-humanisation of the town centre. See below. Major developments, of course do not fit into this approach. So another approach is needed for them: such developments should be sited as far as possible next to railway lines; see below. Better Road Facilities Generate Traffic If we make it easier and more attractive for people to use road transport, then road use will increase. In the short term, people will more likely make journeys that they perceive as easy, and will tend to lengthen their journeys. In the longer term, firms will tend to locate further from their suppliers and customers, housing will be located further from shops, large superstores will locate further from where people live. All because the roads are better. It hardly need be pointed out how the M 25 - designed to speed up and facilitate road traffic round and through London - has become the world's largest car park because it has generated so much traffic. Closer at home, it should be obvious by now that provision of yet more roadway does not solve Warrington's transport problems. The centre of Warrington seems to be one huge roundabout, with roadspace everywhere, yet it is even more congested than it used to be. And Warrington sits in the middle of one of the most concentrated motorway networks in the country. But this has, if anything increased rather than decreased congestion and other problems, and it does not seem to have contributed significantly to Warrington's economic prosperity or level of "good quality jobs". It is at best short-sighted to think that more of the same - yet more roadspace and better facilities for drivers - will solve or ameliorate Warrington's problems. This means that the temptation to improve roads, build new road schemes and improve facilities for drivers should be resisted. While such schemes may reduce the single problem of congestion for a few years, they lead to a net increase in road usage, which exacerbates all the other problems. Car parking facilities should not be over-generous. Developments should not be located near the motorway, since this encourages people to reach them by car. Surprising - and even cruel - though it may seem, congestion should perhaps be seen as the planner's friend, not an enemy. Developments that Generate Traffic Some developments generate traffic by their very nature. A drive-through burger bar, a large out-of-town superstore, yet another golf course in the country, all generate new traffic that did not exist before. The important thing is that while some such developments are necessary, the majority, strictly speaking, are not. If there is no drive-through burger bar then people will find something else to eat, and many of those will walk or cycle to find it. If there is no out-of-town superstore then people will shop more locally or in the town centre, and thus more often walk, cycle or travel by train or bus. If the umpteenth golf course application is turned down, then it merely means that some people who would otherwise use their afternoons playing golf might do other things instead that do not require the use of a car. So, many car journeys are then not undertaken. What this means is that, generally, the Local Plan need not cater for developments that by their nature generate new traffic. The Plan should distinguish between those that are necessary and those that are not. If there is no golf course at all near Warrington then provision of one could be seen as necessary and might actually shorten the journeys of those who play golf. But in many recent cases, applications for golf course development is largely opportunistic over-supply and can hardly be said to be necessary. Yes, we are aware that such facilities look good to the Borough's accountants, in attracting more people in to spend money that then comes in as rates etc. But that is false and one-sided logic, as discussed below. We need to Plan for Reduced Road Use As mentioned above - and as stated on page 21 of the draft Plan - the Department of the Environment states that the Plan must not assume that car use will continue to increase indefinitely. Central Government is slowly waking up to the need to move away from demand-led road policy, towards one that is more plan-led. While the Department of Transport is still blind to ecological realities, the Department of the Environment is becoming enlightened. But how does that translate into Plan policies? We want to be more specific. The Government has stated that it wants global warming emissions reduced to their 1990 levels within the next few years. While we believe that this target is too conservative and will have to be lowered in the near future, it is the one we have been given to work with. We suggest that this means that the Plan should deliberately plan for 1990 levels of traffic, and not one car or lorry more. If we plan for more then we are deliberately going against the Government's own target. But, some might say, will not cars become more efficient, so that more of them can produce the same level of emissions? It is dangerous and unwise to rely of that being the case. First, it is unlikely that there will any further significant increases in efficiency (that is, of an order of magnitude); most increases from here will be marginal, small percentages. Second, it rests on the assumption that journey lengths and numbers will remain the same. This has manifestly not been so. Partly because of the traffic-generating effect of better and more roads, as discussed above. "But, we must deal with this or that horrible congestion," some will say. Yes, but the way to deal with congestion is not to build better roads but to reduce the amount of travelling that people do. As discussed above, congestion may be a planner's friend. Yet others might ask, do we really have to be so 'down' on the motorist? Can we not reduce road use by installing a better public transport system? Briefly, no. First, who will pay for it? Second, it has been found repeatedly that even the best public transport does not really attract significant numbers of people from their cars - unless it also happens that driving is an unpleasant experience due to congestion etc. Third, we are not just talking about the motorist, but about the truck driver as well; we are talking about freight as well as people. Fourth - as the Road Lobby and the Department of Transport so often is pleased to point out - even if the use of trains doubles, the reduction in car use will reduce by only one eighth; so public transport can hardly be the answer by itself. So, if we are to have any confidence about hitting the Government's target then the Plan must assume and cater for no more than 1990 levels of road use. What this means is - generally - there must be no new roads. Even minor road improvements must be considered very carefully. Plan for Rail Access However, public transport does have an important part to play. While we must reduce the need for travel in total, we must also ensure that as large a proportion as possible of the travelling that still needs to be done, can be done by more ecological modes such as cycling (see later) and train or (for freight) water. The Inspector at the Cheshire 2001 Examination In Public recommended, > ! L R "We also consider that the importance of rail access - potential as well as existing - could be important in securing the environmental acceptability of many of the development proposals in the Plan, and that it should assume a role of rather greater importance in the County Council's on-going planning than has perhaps hitherto been the case." >----!----!----!----!-----------------------------------------R What this means is that as many developments as possible must be within easy reach of the rail network. This is true for both passengers and freight. While little can be done in the short term to make this so for much existing development, the Plan can ensure that it is true for all new development. Or, at least, for all new large developments. It should ensure that all new large developments are sited only next to railway lines. Note that we do not say "existing railway stations" but "railway lines". This is because we are looking to the future rather than the present. Note the word, 'potential', in the Inspector's comment. At present, many people jump in their cars out of habit and would not use a train service even if available. At present, many firms are geared up to receive their raw materials and distribute their products by road and (as the CharterRail and other recent experiences have shown) would not use rail even if available. But it will not always be like that. (For evidence that people and firms will change their car-using habits, and come to like the change, see the insert below on Groningen.) In the future people and firms will want to move to using rail - and we believe this will start during the lifetime of this Plan. To do this, they will need access to the rail network - to build new stations for passengers and to put in new sidings for freight. All larger developments - residential, retail, employment or leisure - must therefore be sited next to the rail network. Of course, there is an alternative to this, which is relevant to the Omega Site. At present it is not next to a railway line. So, instead, the route of one should be identified in the plan, linking it to the existing network. And that route must be protected. The same should be done for all existing sizable developments away from existing railway lines. Protect Rail Trackbed The easiest way to identify the route for a new railway line is to use old rail trackbed. There are many disused lines which could be brought back into use at a cost far less than building a complete new line. These must be protected from development that would otherwise jeopardise their future use. North of Manchester, a housing estate was allowed to be built across the old line to Bury - so there is no possibility now of a direct train route from that area to Manchester. There is only a roundabout route, with train changes, and it is no wonder that people find it much quicker and convenient to use their cars. Similarly, all possibility of a rail route from Oxford to Cambridge has now been destroyed. What this means is that no development that harms existing rail trackbed (i.e. disused lines) must be allowed. One stretch of the South Warrington Link seems to do just that. Either the link should be redesigned, or it should be deleted altogether. Warrington Cycle Town The other main ecological alternative to the car is the bicycle. Indeed, it might have more of an impact than the train. Cycling, here, is seen as a means of transport, not just as a leisure activity, though it undoubtedly is the latter. The Cheshire County Council State of the Environment Project (Transport), of which the main author was a member, warmed to the idea that one of Cheshire's town should be ear-marked for development as a cyclists town. The author suggested Crewe or Chester, but the group suggested Warrington. Warrington does seem to be a good choice because it is relatively flat and because cycling would make a significant difference. Cycling is not only more ecological and healthier than car driving but also more economic to the Local Authority. This was demonstrated in Holland's sixth largest city, Groningen. They have found that "planning for the bicycle is cheaper than planning for the car." It requires much less to be spent on roads, and it boosts jobs and business. Businesses, though at first against car restraint, now want more restraint. Since it reversed its transport policy in 1977, to favour the bicycle, Groningen has boomed. Its earlier population outflow has reversed, and rents are high. People and businesses actively want to locate in Groningen. It is a city of 170,000 population, almost exactly the same size as Warrington. See the enclosed newspaper article (Independent, 12th June 1993). Of course, Warrington and Groningen are different, and it is unrealistic to expect Warrington to gain as high a usage of the bicycle as Groningen during the Plan period. But important steps could - and should - be made in that direction, using the City of Groningen (and our own City of Cambridge) as an example. We urge the Borough Council to contact the City Council in Groningen (and Cambridge) for advice and to gain a true picture of the costs, benefits and methodology of catering for cycling and restraining the car. Creating a Cycling Town is more than a matter of land-use planning, of course. A cycling culture needs to be encouraged to grow. The cycle-based part of the local economy needs to be encouraged, supported and, where necessary, receive some pump-priming. One must go slowly enough to take the population in general with one, but one must also go fast enough to ensure reaching the goal of a healthier population and the better quality of life that that brings, higher quality environment, and the provision of higher quality jobs. In short, aiming at a Cycling Town will get us a lot nearer to the Borough Council's Corporate Aims. Land-use planning will, of course, play an important part in either hindering the fostering of a cycling culture or building it. Groningen has acted to dig up a number of erstwhile highways, narrowing other roads, closing others, so that cars, while not banned, have to make long detours. A 'fine mesh' cycling network has been established, which makes cycling convenient, fast, healthy and fun. The more people cycle, the safer it has become. So, in Warrington, for instance, plans for east-west crossings, north-south links and the like should be replaced by plans for cycleways. The town centre road system should be redesigned to allow cycles direct access and to exclude the car altogether. Cycle priority routes should be built from the periphery to the centre, and also concentrically around the periphery, to create the necessary 'fine mesh'. All developments should provide cycle parking. In Groningen there are some houses to which direct access can be made only by bicycle. In addition to this, the environment for the cyclist should be made more attractive, with trees lining the cycleways, etc. There is much more. SENSITIVE INTEGRATION There is a tendency to be protectionist, protecting people's living space from 'nasty' industry or whatever. A protectionist attitude leads to zoning, which separates one use of land from another sometimes by a considerable distance. Such policy goes hand in hand with 'economies of scale', centralising resources and facilities and distancing them from their users. This type of approach has three main drawbacks. First, as discussed above, it forces people to use their cars to obtain their facilities, since they are no longer in walking distance. Second, it reduces the level of interest in the local community, replacing it with uniformity. Third, and perhaps more fundamental, it removes from the perpetrators of noise, dirt and traffic any feeling of responsibility and incentive to clean up their act. They are a long way from where people live, so they can be as noisy as they like and release as much pollution as is within the law, and generate as much traffic as the roads will allow. When such an attitude takes root in a (regional or local) community the community suffers. While there is a genuine need for some measure of protection, espcecially from those developments that are necessary but inherently noisy and dirty, we feel the pendulum is too far over and needs to be brought back to centre. We need to ensure that such developments have an immediate sense of repsonsibility. We need to enhance the variety in each immediate community in terms not only of visual appearance but also of human activity. We need to plan so that it is at least possible to walk to where we want to get to, even if not everybody will do so. Of course, their will be many cases when this is not feasible, such as for large facilities, but at least the pendulum could be swung back a little by modification of some policies. The key to success in such an approach is sensitive integration. This is a sub-set of Environmentally Sensitive Integration, discussed below. ECONOMIC AND OTHER CRITERIA The Elevation of Economics A Land Use Plan is an excellent opportunity to set the direction for future prosperity, or the lack of it. Land remains with us indefinitely, so how we plan its use now will affect what happens 50 or 100 years hence. The challenge is to lay the foundation for future prosperity, rather than future impoverishment. However, aiming primarily at economic objectives - such as economic regeneration - will not lay such a foundation. This is because the economic prosperity of a community is not ensured or created by following the rules of accountancy. While the laws of economics must not be ignored, they cannot by themselves assure us of true prosperity. Prosperity comes from the intermixing of many aspects of the community's functioning, including such apparently nebulous things as the attitudes of its members, a sense of vision, a sense of responsibility, a sense of self-giving rather than self-getting. What we are talking about is not prosperity over the next two years, but in the longer term. We are not talking about the number of pounds at the bottom of the Borough's balance sheet but about something more sustainable and meaningful, a general well-being in the community and each member of it, a sense of 'shalom' and wholesomeness, a feeling of belonging to the Borough, a goodwill among its members. These are the things that lead to a sound balance sheet, and do so sustainably. It has links with quality of life, but the latter term has become so abused in recent years that is needs interpretation. It is no coincidence that the firms that have stood the test of time - Cadbury's, Boot's, Lever Bros, Guinness, etc. - were firms that started out, not primarily to make money, but with a mission for justice. Cadbury's and Guinness started out with the aim of providing an alternative drink that could reduce the curse of drunkenness. Josiah Boot started out to provide access to medicines for the poor. Levers started out to provide the poor with the opportunity to keep clean and avoid disease. The lesson is that Warrington Borough should have justice as its primary aim, not the fickle notion of economic regeneration. By 'justice' we do not mean law-keeping (the Conservative view), nor equality (the Socialist view), but giving what is due to all in the created order of things. This varies from one historical era to another, as the presenting problems evolve, and in the nineteenth century it meant attending to the poor. But today the presenting problems are different. We are damaging the planet on which we live. We live in a global village. We seek high quality and convenience for ourselves yet there are places in the world where people do not even have the basics. Our own communities have become dehumanised. We have lost much of our sense of responsibility. And our non-human neighbours are exposed to considerable injustice. So justice, today, justice that should lie at the heart of the Warrington Plan, will focus on righting these wrongs. That will set the course for robust, sustainable and true prosperity. So, we should strenuously avoid elevating economics above other aspects of reality. We should hold all aspects in balance. While we must of course not ignore the rules of sound economics, as was perhaps done in the 1960s and 1970s, economic regeneration should not be made the main goal. Economic regeneration will flow only from such a broad view of justice as outlined above. Profits, not Income However, even within the realm of fiscal economics, we notice in places a rather fundamental naivety. From our reviwing of many Land-Use Plans it seems that many Local Authorities - not just Warrington - fall foul of a very basic rule of finance. The objective that underlies many policies, especially those to do with industry, seems to be to maximize income. Attract industry and commerce here, so the argument seems to go, and the Borough will then have the benefit of more income in terms of taxes and job provision. And that is a Good Thing. Similarly, we must do all we can to avoid putting obstacles in the way of firms who might locate here, because they would go elsewhere and we would lose income. But there are also costs. Not just direct costs, but indirect. What is important is not income but profit. One of the main apparent attractions of inward investment is that it 'provides jobs', and some of the problems with seeing jobs as a commodity to be provided have been discussed above. The Plan should not give an uncritical or general welcome to inward investment. Inward investment is income, not profit, and often brings unforeseen problems later on. Tourism and Attracting Visitors Nowhere is this mistaking of income for profits more pronounced than in the case of tourism. Tourism is seen as source of free income, which has merely to be tapped into to gain all measure of benefits. Not so; it is a chimera. While there is some benefit to be gained from encouraging tourism in a place that receives few visitors - and Warrington may be one of these - tourism is not the magic answer. As many places have found, tourism brings many problems. It generates and increases traffic. It destroys the local community. Local people feel alienated as they see facilities forever provided for tourists at the expense - so they think - of facilities for themselves. Much land is given over to commercial tourist ventures. And the whole atmosphere of the place changes to one of superficiality. If it is felt that Warrington has not 'benefited' from the tourist boom, it should be thankful. In particular, no welcome should be given to large tourist-oriented developments. These are dangerous, in generating income but not much profit, for the local community; see above. If tourism is to be enhanced in Warrington, it should be by means of small developments at the ground level, by which visitors gain the benefit of those things that are unique to Warrington. BIO-DIVERSITY Wildlife also Uses Land For too long it has been wrongly assumed that 'land use' means use by human beings. Frequently, land is called 'derelict' and 'unused' when in fact it is being very useful to non-human species: wildlife. However, the attribution sticks and the media, business and Local Authorities alike clamour for the land to be developed. Only so, it is thought, can that land be brought into 'productive use'. The result is that many valuable wildlife habitats or corridors are destroyed. When this happens, the affected species die off in that area. Do they not move elsewhere? The answer would seem to be no, if recent studies on estuary habitats can be generalised. They have nowhere else to go. As our wildlife diminishes, its populations become less sustainable, and its variety less rich. Local walks, that used to be full of bird movement and bird song, and promised the occasional glimpse of shy mammals, become boring. A rich wildlife gives interest, peace and a sense of well-being. And such leisure and entertainment as wildlife offers is free; even the poorest can enjoy it. The Plan must resist any assumption that 'land-use' means human beings. It must resist the temptation to see any 'unused' land as needing 'development', and judge each piece of land on its own merits. If the land is genuinely derelict, such as an industrial spoil yard, then little wildlife will inhabit it; it is 'unused' indeed. But it may be that the so-called derelict land is important as a wildlife habitat or corridor. Note that wildlife is not so affected by the visual appearance of land as we seem to be, and what appears an eye-sore to us is often exactly how non-human species like it. Wildlife must not be treated as expendable; even if it may seem to serve no human utility, we have a responsibility to its Maker. Bio-Diversity The key to a healthy wildlife regime is bio-diversity: the maintenance of a rich, varied and balanced collection of fauna and flora within the Borough. Bio-diversity is useful as a goal concept because it leads to other desirable characteristics. Or, at least, it becomes easier to achieve other goals in an area of high bio-diversity. In particular this is true of the three Strategic Aims, of a good environment, high quality of life and even, indirectly, of high quality jobs. We suggest that bio-diversity should be the single introductory concept of the ENV section, in place of landscape. It is the foundation on which our environment is based. We show in the ENV section how it will automatically lead to other necessary features. As discussed below, as far as possible bio-diversity should be aimed at in all parts of the Borough, not just in SSSIs etc. Even in the town bio-diversity is important. It enriches the residents' gardens. The Green Network becomes alive and not just a green substitute for paving stones. It gives a 'soul' to the town, and many residents (and visitors) find the joy of meeting seldom-seen species as they walk around. Of course, it takes on a different form in built-up areas. Even though the number of species may be smaller than in the countryside, it is still possible to obtain a degree of richness and interest. 'Derelict' land that has become naturalised in the middle of a built-up area could be important, and care should be taken that the interests of non-human species are taken into account when development is considered. One problem is that in most parcels of land (outside SSSIs etc.) there is little information about its level of bio-diversity. What is really needed is a Borough-wide survey of its land, including mapping all wildlife corridors and bio-centres, so that proper decisions may be made. However, we are realistic enough to know that this is unlikely to happen in the near future, and certainly not before the Plan has to go on deposit. Therefore we suggest that a survey should be taken of all land to be developed for which there is any reason to believe that it may have some wildlife value. The survey should include not only birds and plants, but also mammals, insects, reptiles, amphibians, bats, arachnids and so on. It is particularly important that the survey be undertaken for every piece of derelict land before it is allowed to be developed. The only exception to the bio-diversity principle is when there is a special, uncommon habitat which needs to be protected from encroachment by species that might damage it. However such sites are rare, and a special policy could be formulated for them. Maintaining Bio-Diversity How are we to maintain high levels of bio-diversity? Indeed, how are we to raise the levels in the first place? What form should land-use policies take? The important concepts are the bio-centre and the wildlife corridor. Bio-centres act as sources of wildlife, from which they can disperse to other land. (This information comes via the Mersey Forest and University of Salford, based on European expertise) They are of different sizes, local and regional. Regional bio-centres are large areas such as Delamere Forest, and it is unlikely that Warrington has any. Local bio-centres are smaller, but must be viable - not much less than 1 sq km in extent and preferably larger. In any given area there should be several local bio-centres of differing types, in order that variety may be maintained. The type will depend on the soil, the lie of the land, the weather, and other factors. In the town, derelict land is often an important, albeit small, bio-centre. Wildlife corridors are pieces of habitat that connect bio-centres to each other and connect other land to bio-centres. They allow wildlife to move around. Not only animals but, more slowly, plants too. Streams often make valuable corridors when they are lined with trees and bushes. Large open spaces do not. So the Green Network in Warrington will only act as a wildlife corridor where it is not open fields or neat gardens. In the built-up areas, gardens, the backs of premises and derelict land can all be valuable as wildlife corridors. It is important that both bio-centres and corridors be considered in the Plan. Every care should be taken, especially in the town, not to break any corridors or damage the effectiveness of any bio-centres. We already have too few. But it is unlikely that where they are is not known. A survey must be carried out (perhaps enlisting help from the volunteer sector such as local natural history societies). Further, it is important that the countryside extends into Warrington. Then wildlife can more easily penetrate. This means that Warrington should be shaped more like a star than a circle. It is important not to 'tidy up the edges' of the town by filling in, unless there is some overriding reason for doing so. Environmentally Sensitive Integration While it is important to protect bio-centres - and many are designated SSSIs, sites of County Value, etc. - we should treat the rest of the land as environmentally sensitive too. Some years ago, the World Conservation Strategy pointed out that we "need to dispel any notion that conservation is a limited, independent sector." Conservation, bio-diversity, ecology - all more-or-less equivalent for the purposes of the Plan - is like economics and should permeate all sections of the Plan. We need also to dispel any notion that concern for wildlife is a middle-class leisure interest, and by implication less important than housing, roads, jobs. In fact, many people outside the middle classes take great interest in wildlife; more people go bird watching than go to football matches. It is probably one the most classless interests we have in this country. This is partly because it is free, and partly because it touches a spiritual chord that lies in all human beings. On bio-diversity rests ultimately our own health and sustainability, to say nothing of our prosperity. While protection of special areas is necessary at present, it is not viable as the whole of our wildlife policy. There are several dangers. One is that non-designated areas are considered fair game for developers or intensive agriculture, even though they may be ecologically valuable. Another is that residents of protected areas may feel unfairly done by. A third is that protection can very easily be lifted by future administrations. A sounder approach is to treat the whole countryside as environmentally sensitive (including those parts inside the town). After all, wildlife, nature, the biological world as a whole is sensitive and can too easily be damaged without us realising it. To retain a stable biosphere, we have to learn to live in harmony with it as the rule, and not as the exception - in all areas, not just those specially designated. But this does not mean a tight clamp on all development. On the contrary, given the need for Sustainable Communities, the Plan should seek to integrate a reasonably wide variety of local activity into this overall biological context. The integration should be environmentally sensitive. We advocate a greater flexibility in planning, especially in the Green Belt. But it is important that this flexibility is afforded to small, locally-controlled enterprises, meeting local needs, and not to large ones or ones whose main purpose is commercial. GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY There are two types of Environmental Implications, those concerned with immediate environment and quality of life issues, and those concerned with wider environmental issues such as contribution to Global Warming, etc. The latter will most likely be indirect and the former, more direct. The Plan should recognise the difference, and treat them separately. If they are conflated, the direct implications will usually overshadow the indirect ones, though the latter are often of greater importance. Even though Warrington's contribution to global problems is only a tiny fraction of the total, it still has a responsibility to minimize its adverse effects. The fact that it has a Warrington-sized effect means that it has a Warrington-sized responsibility, not zero responsibility. It can only escape such responsibility if there is another Borough of similar size which is willing to take on a double responsibility - and no such Borough exists. Global responsibility impinges on three main areas: transport, energy and building materials. Road transport is the single largest contributor to global warming, and is growing. As argued above, we must reverse the trend to ever increasing road use. Energy can be saved by astute design of buildings, by combined heat and power schemes, and by encouraging the building of energy efficient units, such as terraced houses. Building materials often come from rain forests, and should not do so. Warrington should set an example of global responsibility. Everyone knows, deep down, that it is right. Warrington's reputation would benefit enormously and, with it, its prosperity. SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES Community speaks of the way in which the people in the Borough live and work together, and the feel and attitude they have. The big issue here is what are called Sustainable Communities. Recent years have seen much damage to community in the Borough; like most towns at this end of the Twentieth Century, its community is far from sustainable. The centre has become busy but dead. Community is a major land use issue since the sense of community and the degree of its sustainability are either encouraged or destroyed by decisions about what type of development goes where. Note that the concept of Sustainable Communities goes beyond that of the recently fashionable one of 'sustainable development'. The latter assumes that development is the prime aim, and the only problem is how to ensure that one can sustain development activity over the long term. More important is the question of how to sustain Warrington's communities over the long term, so as to reduce problems like vandalism, enhance people's pride in the area, encourage and enable people's natural tendency to self-help and neighbour spirit. Development is only one part of a community's activities. But here we outline briefly what is meant by 'Sustainable Communities', and what this means for the Warrington Borough Plan. Briefly, in a Sustainable Community, > ! L R 1. People centre their lives there. 2. People find most of their needs met there. 3. People actively participate in decisions. 4. People care for their locality. 5. People's responsibilities are not hidden from them. 6. There is variety in ages, occupations, building types, etc. 7. All land-use directly relates to the community. 8. The community is in balance with local and global environment. 9. The community is dynamic, yet steady-state in its make-up. >----!----!----!----!-----------------------------------------R The above is an ideal, a set of goals to aim for. Few places will achieve all of them. Perhaps the community closest to it at present is Davis, California, which has had more than a decade of Green-dominated government and attempts at putting such ideas into practice. It thus offers an important showpiece, giving both examples to follow and errors to avoid. We will make some reference to the Davis experience in the rest of our comments. Obviously, in the United Kingdom, an island such as the Orkney Mainland is the most likely place to find anything approaching a Sustainable Community. But it is a mistake to think that only such communities can be sustainable. While Warrington as a whole is too large to assume many of the above characteristics, it contains smaller parts, each of which can be much more sustainable than they are at present. And it is the responsibility of the Local Plan to move towards patterns of land use that encourage and enable Warrington's communities to be more sustainable, and discourage unsustainable practices. Let us explore how Warrington could move closer to the above goals. 1. People centre their lives there. That is, in each community there should be more local employment, shops, schools, leisure, worship, etc. The opposite of zoning and out-of-town shopping centres. Also, the opposite of drawing all retail into the centre. All new housing allocations must have employment and retail, etc. All new industrial allocations should also have housing. More housing should be brought back into the centre. 'Living Cities'. 'Free' leisure interests such as local walking should be recognised, encouraged and planned for. Not all the good things in life have a monetary label attached. Encourage cycling and walking, and discourage use of cars by under- rather than over-provision of roads. 2. People find most of their needs met there. Obviously, some needs can only be satisfied on a regional basis. But many could be met at the community level. Requires similar things to (1) above. As John Gummer has recently stated, small closes of executive houses damage community since they are too small and segregated. 3. People actively participate in decisions. Not so much a land use policy, except: how easy is it for people to reach the places where decisions are made? Is a community hall or centre available? 4. People care for their locality. This means two things. One is that the boundaries of the community must be easily perceived, so they know - and feel - what to care for. (The downside of well defined boundaries, of course, is snobbishness, exclusion, etc. These are products of a human condition for which perhaps the best word is the old-fashioned one: sin. As such, the problem, and thus the solution, is not a land use issue but a spiritual one.) The other is that people must have incentive to care. They must not feel threatened, for instance by encroachment from insensitive development. Boundaries help. 5. People's responsibilities are not hidden from them. If a local firm neglects its pollution or noise control then this should be immediate obvious to the local community, so that they have a strong incentive to rectify the mistake. Segregating them to sites where their pollution and noise seems to be less of a nuisance removes the necessary incentives and sense of responsibility. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Similar principles apply to the individual householder. 6. There is variety in ages, occupations, building types, etc. Mix types, size and cost of housing. Housebuilders are becoming aware of this now. A useful policy is that no housing development should be more than 12 houses in size. This helps to ensure that the new is mixed with the old, and is spread throughout the Borough. Villages are rejuvenated but in a sensitive and gradual way. Another useful policy is to build small numbers of housing for rent, dotted here and there, rather than in housing estates. 30% of the houses built during the past year were self-built; this is a welcome trend and the Plan should acknowledge it. 7. All land-use directly relates to the community. While there are obviously valid exceptions to this rule, there are far too many exceptions at present. Warrington has far too many 'national' and 'international' organisations for its own good. 8. The community is in balance with local and global environment. Ideally, this means much more of Warrington's food and other resources should be produced locally, but it is recognised that such a goal is unlikely to be achieved in the near future. However, one important factor is that the amount of land available for non-human species should not be decreased. Any land 'developed' should be matched by an equal amount of land released from development and restored to a natural state. Also, care should be taken to plan, build and maintain 'greenways'; this is discussed below. What has been called the Tragedy of the Commons (below) should be recognised. Encourage allotments. 9. The community is dynamic, yet steady-state in its make-up. All the above does not imply a fossilization, but rather a more robust and healthy community that has a greater capacity to release people and firms to relocate elsewhere, and absorb incomers. But this means that strenuous vigilance is maintained to ensure that no one firm or commercial sector dominates the community. Before letting any large firm settle or expand, the question should be asked: "What would the effect be on the Borough if that firm suddenly disappeared?" While this is much more than a land use question, it has implications for land use. Communities take decades to form, of course, and cannot be created overnight. But their formation can be helped or hindered by land use planning. >op APPENDIX 2 - Sustainability thinking from around the world: a) On Greenways, City of Davis, California b) Urban Planning in Curitiba c) The Urban Age: Sustainable cities in an Urbanising World, paper by Herbert Girardet >op APPENDIX 3 - Sheffield Unitary Development Plan - Transport Chapter Update >op APPENDIX 4 - Material from International Bodies a) Notes on meeting of E.U. b) Rio Declaration on Environment and Development c) U.N.A. Bio-Diversity Convention >op APPENDIX 5 - Biodiversity and Sustainable Development - A Perspective