LAND AT SHOTWICK PUBLIC INQUIRY EXPLANATION OF EVIDENCE Flintshire Green Party Integration of All Aspects of Sustainable Development Psalm 104:10-18 (see evidence): Three thousand years ago, King David, as he looked around the land, noting that wildlife, food growing and the meeting of other human needs, were integrated into a single harmonious system designed and upheld by God. This psalm illustrates the three main points of the concerning land at Shotwick: # The land is needed for farming and food production. # The land is important for wildlife. # The land is has important historical value. Together with human morale, quality of life and economics, these are essential ingredients of sustainable development. True wealth creation is not possible without such integration of all aspects (see evidence from PPG 7). PPG 7 (1.4) emphasises the need to "maintain or enhance the character of the countryside and conserver its natural resources, including safeguarding the distinctiveness of its landscapes, its beauty, the diversity of its wildlife." Likewise the EC Communication on Industrial Competitiveness concludes that "a qualitative improvement in the degree of integration of environment and industrial policies in order to derive positive benefits for both policies" and "constructive dialogue with industry to improve the effectiveness of environmental policy." The proposed development would break both of these by promoting industry at the expense of environment, and ultimately to the detriment even of industrial competitiveness. Yet again, the UNED-UK Annual Conference on Sustainable Human Development, submitted as evidence, emphasises the need for integration of diverse aspects. A sound theoretical foundation for interdisciplinary approaches to sustainability in planning is outlined in the paper by Basden and Lombardi submitted as evidence; this provides a mechanism for taking into account the economics with the biological, the social with the psychological, the juridical with the physical, the quantitative with the ethical, the aesthetic with the spiritual elements that together compose true sustainability. Sustainable Development According to 'Sustainable Wales' evidence: "Sustainable development is about striking a better, more creative balance between economic development, environmental protection and social change, about finding ways of meeting our needs without jeopardising the ability of our children to meet theirs." It continues: "Development that is more balanced should be more enduring, and offer a better change of long-term prosperity." Evidence from Prof. Dr. Klaus Topfer points out that limits expand ... "as we find ways to ensure economic growth without strain for natural resources and eco-systems." Evidence from the IUCN, UNEP and WWF, points out that development must be "conservation-based", and in particular should be designed such that it: # conserves life-support systems # conserves biodiversity # ensures that the use of renewable resources is sustainable. That this should occur not only at the global level but also the local level is emphasised by LA21 Vision (Local Agenda 21). In the evidence presented there is a list of factors that are involved in this, which includes "local work in a strong local economy" and "reducing our impact upon the environment" and "using green space effectively for humans and wildlife", amongst others. The Green Party Industrial Policy paper submitted as evidence contains arguments and evidence that the traditional approach to industry and industrial investment is counter- productive even in economic terms and cannot help but cause environmental damage, even when it attempts to ameliorate this by so-called mitigation. Environmental Law The UNEP's New Way Forward stresses the importance of more closely linking environmental law with trade law and human rights law. National and international Law is moving ever towards such integration. The proposed development at Shotwick would sever such links; this means that if the proposal were to be allowed, there is every possibility that it would soon become illegal, with the necessity of huge expenditure to remedy the situation. The Green Party MEP, Dr. Caroline Lucas (evidence) concerns the possibility that "millions of pounds of EU aid could be delayed unless the UK speedily complies with nature conservation directives." Land for Food Production This integration is vital for land at Shotwick. Farming and farmland has not changed in its importance since those times, in spite of attempts in the late twentieth century to believe otherwise. As we enter the 21st century, the European Commission is turning away from all forms of intensive farming, and has withdrawn subsidies for it and providing them for less intensive and organic farming methods. (Evidence: Paper by Maureen Usher.) This means that farming will require all the top grade land that is available (grades I, II). The land at Shotwick is formally grade II, but, apart from being subject to wind, it is in fact of grade I standard. It is the only such land in Wales. Even as grade II, it is rare in Wales, and in fact the whole of Britain. Therefore it should be protected from any form of development that would diminish its use for food growing and wildlife. PPG 7 emphasises "protecting the best agricultural land" and the importance of maintaining "food production and a competitive agricultural industry" (1.7). Farming methods of lower intensiveness are labour intensive and will generate more jobs. Relative to jobs offered by modern industrial and commercial enterprises, these jobs: # will use local skills # will help the local economy # are more permanent # are more health-giving, in that they involve human exercise as a fundamental component. The paper UNED-UK Annual Conference on Sustainable Human Development estimates that if even ten per cent of UK food production was converted to organic methods, this would result in up to 18,000 extra jobs within 10 to 15 years. Land for Wildlife The Communication of the European Commission on Biodiversity Strategy points out that all parties should "integrate as far as possible and as appropriate the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programmes and policies." This includes decisions at the local level such as here at Shotwick. The proposed development flies in the face of such requirements. The proposed development would cause the extinction of the last Corn Buntings in Wales. It would also increase the rate of decline of around 50 other UK priority species of birds that are subject to European protection. The proposal is in breach of the European Birds and Habitats Directives. See also the Internet-derived pages concerning skylarks, corn buntings and other species, and Eco-scene page. The proposed development includes a re-landscaping and re-planting regime. While this might seem admirable, it is in fact counter-productive, because it would displace the rare and uncommon species and replace them with common species, because of the change of habitat. It takes decades, or even longer, for a habitat to mature to the point where it sustains viable populations of the less common species. The evidence 'Naturopa' Spring 1991 emphasises the value of nature. It points out that "most people get most enjoyment from everyday birds, not rare ones, but the dashing lapwings, the skylarks, the brightly coloured yellowhammers, and linnets. A countryside without them is like food without seasoning. Many of them live in our gardens, but have roots in the woods and on farmland. Changes in the countryside affect the numbers of birds we watch from our armchairs." The populations of all the birds mentioned above, and more, would be severely depleted in the area if the proposal were to go ahead, with the resultant loss of quality of life of many living around Deesside and Shotwick. Quality of life is one of the major criteria of the Government planning policy. A major issue is to place a 'value' upon wildlife that can be used in comparisons with more traditional economic indicators. There is a number of ways of doing this, one of which is contained in the evidence headed 'On the Meaning of Economics', esp. on its page 3 of 9. No survey has been carried out on location of the badger setts, social groups and foraging areas in the vicinity of the site. This should have been done. The development of the site, together with the traffic generated, will severely damage the local population of badgers. To lose 516 acres of land to gain 180 acres of development is an obscene waste of finite resources. Landscape of Historical Value Landscape consists of two elements: space and location (Dr. K. Gee, Manchester Metropolitan University). Location is where the features are located, space is what is between them. For example, Flint Castle and Shotwick are sea defence castles connected by causeway. Constructing a bypass round Flint Castle would change its perceptual location from sea defence to an inland castle, for which it makes little historical sense. In the same way, allowing the proposed development would change Shotwick's location to an inland castle, again for which it makes little historical sense. Inward Investment and Jobs The proposed development aims to attract inward investment, rather than local firms. Inward investment carries many penalties and generates severe problems, often of a longer term and indirect nature, resulting in the local economy and community being handicapped in the long term. Fifteen of these problems are outlined in the paper entitled 'Inward Investment' by Cheshire Federation of Green Parties submitted with the evidence, as also included as an Appendix in the House of Commons Welsh Affairs Committee Inquiry into Investment in Industry in Wales Report (which went to the House of Commons for debate). A specific example in Wales of the failure of "the biggest inward investment that Europe has ever seen", is described in the cutting 'Industry doesn't need greenbelt' submitted as evidence. Not only will most of these problems become manifest in the Shotwick case, but the benefits of inward investment that sometimes accrue will not apply in the case of Shotwick. The reasons for this are presented in the email entitled 'Inward Investment in Flintshire'. (Note that, now that it is being proposed that the site be split into smaller units, then any companies of this size that wish to come into the area could easily be accommodated in brown-field sites in the travel-to-work areas of Cheshire and North Wales.) The Green/EFA Press Release underlines the problem that is increasing in Flintshire, of jobs being occupied by highly skilled incomers and effectively excluded to local people. This is also highlighted in the Meridien Report, 20th June 2000, and also in PURE Report, 18th February 2000. The route to permanent jobs that suit the local community is by expanding local SMEs (see Forward Wales 2000 KPMG report) and also organic and low intensity farming, as discussed above, rather than by inward investment. In terms of job provision, the Shotwick land, being high grade agricultural land, is most suited to agricultural sector jobs, while non-agricultural jobs should be provided inside the existing communities on the other side of the River Dee. Flintshire should be developing and training its own qualified engineers (see Comment from Engineering Technology) rather than merely providing an easy entry for engineers from outside. One root of this problem is a misunderstanding of what Economics is. The true meaning of economics, especially as linked to Quality of Life, is discussed in the paper 'Economics for a Sustainable Future' submitted as evidence, and also in the Paper 'The Real Meaning of Economics' but Dr. A. Basden. The proposed development will increase road use and congestion (there is no proposal to use rail or water, only road). The MDS Transmodal Feasibility Study submitted as evidence estimates that each return car trip will cost 78p or more in terms of net cost to society. This means that the local community will suffer these costs, and the inward firms will be thus subsidised by the local community. Given the lack of real need for the incomer jobs, this is a heavy price for the local community to pay for the destruction of its wildlife and good quality farmland. Paragraph 8.1.8 in particular highlights the irresponsibility of the proposal. Cllr. K. Armstrong-Braun, Flintshire Green Party, 23 October 2000.