CONTRIBUTION TO EXAMINATION IN PUBLIC of CHESHIRE 2011 by CHESHIRE FEDERATION OF GREEN PARTIES. 1. "TOO BIASED TOWARD CONSERVATION"? - NO! The County Council proposes a new objective and three amendments to Cheshire 2011 on the grounds that "some people" have expressed concern "that the objectives are too biased towards conservation." First, who are these "some people"? We demand the right to know, in advance of the Examination in Public. What is the number of "some people"? How many of those have vested interests, and how many do not? What is the proportion of each? Second, we utterly dispute this statement. # The statement made is of an absolute nature. It might be that Cheshire 2011 is less biased towards development than has been the norm in the past, but that is relative, not absolute. # Therefore, we wish to know: on what absolute grounds has this absolute statement been made. # On absolute grounds, we argue that the original draft is too biased towards development: # There is a limit on the amount of land available in Cheshire and the U.K. # Therefore we cannot forever keep on allocating more and more land, every ten years to development. # The acknowledged problems with intensive agriculture, together with future climate changes in U.K. and Europe (deserts appearing in southern Europe) will mean that more, not less, land will be required in the U.K. in general and Cheshire in particular for food production. # The destruction of wildlife habitats over the last 50 years and the decimation of species (e.g. see BTO figures quoted in our original submission) must be reversed, not exacerbated. That means that land for wildlife must not be decreased in area but increased. # For true sustainability, the total amount of land developed MUST NOT INCREASE. # But Cheshire 2011 proposes huge allocation of land to various kinds of 'development'. Therefore we strenuously object to the proposed new Objective and amendments. 2. GENERAL OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES 2.1 Biodiversity # We reiterate our concern that the Objectives, and indeed the whole Plan that is Cheshire 2011 make little or no mention of biodiversity. If the County Council can propose the addition of another Objective to meet development demands, it is able to add one for biodiversity. # Biodiversity is not merely trees and birds. Even if Cheshire 2011 were proved to be "too biased towards conservation" (a statement that we utterly reject), it would still be important to insert into the Plan policies that maintain, enhance and repair biodiversity. This is because it is important as the foundation of both our "economic well-being and quality of life" (Objective 3). # But this does not mean that it is subsumed into Objective 3 since there are other factors that contribute to these. # We have argued the importance of biodiversity in our original submission. The importance of biodiversity to quality of life is well understood. We would clarify, however, the importance of biodiversity to economic well-being: # Biodiversity means that pest species in agriculture are kept in check more, without need for so much costly, energy-using and polluting pesticides. # Biodiversity makes every landscape richer, and thus makes people happier or more at peace, which improves overall performance at work and at home. # Biodiversity makes local walks more interesting, thus encouraging walking as a means of transport. Especially, this is important for mums deciding whether to drive or walk their children to school. # Biodiversity in towns softens urban living, making it more bearable. "Everybody should wake up to birdsong." # Biodiversity gives Cheshire's young people something to focus on outside of themselves, leading to less vandalism and fewer (costly) educational problems. # Other examples of the link between biodiversity and economic well- being, especially sustainable economic well-being, # We have also argued the need to plan the biodiversity infrastructure, along the lines of biocentres and effective wildlife corridors, rather than hope for some ad-hoc solution. We have shown that it is possible to plan them. # We have argued the need to focus on urban and town situations, to plan biodiversity of towns. # We have also argued against a protectionist approach (though protection is needed while human activity is encouraged by Plans like Cheshire 2011 to damage biodiversity). Rather, it is important that we see living with the natural world as the norm rather than the protected exception. All human activities should be made much less damaging to the natural world and we should learn to live and do business in the manner of environmentally sensitive integration. # GEN 1 should therefore have an added clause disallowing any development that harms biodiversity. 2.2 Sustainable Communities # Cheshire 2011 should plan more directly for sustainable communities. While there has been progress towards these ideas over the last decade, 'sustainable community' is different from, and beyond, 'sustainable development'. # 'Sustainable development' focuses on development - bricks and concrete, and the money to be made by those who make or maintain or use them. It assumes that development in general is a good thing, only to be curbed by 'conservation'. # 'Sustainable communities' focuses on living communities. It allows development for the purpose of enhancing the viability, vitality, economic well-being, and quality of life of the community - and sustainability in each of these. It includes the idea of environmentally sensitive integration above. # 'Sustainable development' is still too finance-oriented, as though money were the only thing in life. While money is important, it is not the only thing, not even the only important thing. Nor should it be made the measure of everything. We have argued this in our original submission. # 'Sustainable communities' is life-oriented. While some of Cheshire 2011 is life-oriented, too little is. # It is only when Cheshire has true 'sustainable communities' rather than 'sustainable development' that we will achieve anything like the Objective of "economic well-being and quality of life". 2.3 Finance Centred # It is important that "economic well-being" (Objective 3) is not confused with finance. The Greek word, eco, means 'household', and 'economics' is the law and management of the household; that is, economics is fundamentally to do with skilled and wise management of limited resources. In this view, limitations are seen as a challenge and a spur to creativity. By contrast, the finance- and number-centred view (such things as housing figures) tends to chafe at limitations. 'Economic well-being' can only come about when we embrace and accept and wisely work within limitations. Not when we try to push them back. 3. WHERE SHALL WE LIVE? HOUSING AND LIFESTYLE ISSUES Since the publication of the deposit draft of Cheshire 2011 the Government published Household Growth: Where Shall We Live? It argued that if we do not change our lifestyles then much more housing will be needed, and offered figures. We believe the figures contained therein should be treated as a warning, not a prediction. If we take the figures as a prediction then we assume they are unalterable, pre-determined, and all we can do is to decide how to build all those houses. There is no ideal way to do it. Either we build cramped housing or the nation and the people lose a considerable amount of land, natural heritage that is good for our soul. We destroy food land and the habitats of many species. This is how our predicament is normally presented: a battle between house builders and conservationists. But we believe that this need not be the case, if we interpret the figures in a different way. If we take the figures as a warning, then we use them to understand where we have been going wrong. Then, knowing this, we can choose to do something to rectify it; in Biblical terminology, we can repent of the ways we have been going and turn around. Then, just as with the ancient people of Israel, the predicted outcome will not materialize, we will be spared the damage that was to come upon us. There need no longer be a battle between house building and conservation, or at least not such a major one. 3.1 As a Warning The figures are a warning. Where Shall We Live? clearly shows that we have let the situation arise in which marriage is under threat, people live alone, lonely and rootless, and our elderly people fail to be cared for fully. But behind these problems stand other, deeper, more serious problems. These deeper problems are the reason why marriage is under threat, why more people live alone and why our elderly are not fully cared for. We trace three main factors here: a) National attitudes to family, marriage and sexuality b) National attitudes to business c) Creeping individualism The first has been well covered in public discussion, so we do not need to rehearse the arguments here. But the others are perhaps even deeper, and to some extent a cause of the first. Moreover, they are less frequently discussed; we discuss them below. Of course, we do not see the issues as stark black-and-white, either- or. There is indeed some element of prediction in the figures, e.g. because there will be a population rise. But, if we take the figures as a warning rather than primarily as a prediction, there is sufficient leeway in the response we should make to ameliorate many of the major problems and make the whole issue more tractable. But it demands that our land use planning be geared to helping to solve the problems, rather than contributing to them as the draft does. Therefore, we will discuss mainly those elements that can be taken as a warning, namely those parts to do with the above three problems, about which the County can indeed take some decisive action. 3.2 National Attitudes to Family Much of the document compares the period 1971-1991 with 1991-2016, and by implication uses the figures from the former to calculate estimates for the latter. But we maintain that the former period was unique, and care should be used when basing calculations on it, because the attitudes that prevailed then are fast losing their grip - and it is these attitudes that did the damage. If this is true to any degree, then it makes the task of changing national attitudes that bit easier since any effort to this end will be going 'with the grain' of what people want, deep down. 3.2.1 The outworking of the sexual revolution In the period 1971-1991 highly permissive values reigned, the seeds sown in the 1960s flowered and bore their sad fruit. While the 1960s are seen as the 'sexual revolution' era, in fact that era saw only a colourful, media- worthy minority changing to a permissive lifestyle. But they set an example - helped by the media - that generated a much larger change during the 1970s and 1980s. After the false idealism of the 1960s, in the 1970s there was the "Sod you; I'll do as I please" attitude, as expressed by the punks, and as facilitated by at least three things at the time: (a) massive housebuilding (b) socialist state-supply (c) continuous economic growth. But this is changing. Many of today's young people feel betrayed by their permissive parents and grand-parents. They see that marriage and two-adult families are important. If they themselves seem to follow the permissive example in sexual attitudes it is merely because they have yet to discover the alternative and the means for appropriating it to themselves. But this will change over the next 25 years, with the result that many more will try to make marriage work. 3.2.2 Attitudes to single-parent families It was during this period (1971-1991) that many voices were raised that proposed that single parent families was just as valid an option as what was sneeringly called 'traditional' families. Their hypothesis had yet to be proved false, so many were led to believe and act on that hypothesis. However, many now realise that the hypothesis was false (as shown, for instance, by the study by Dennis and Erdos, 1992). While actual single-parent families need a careful and caring approach, the concept of the single-parent family as an politically correct equally-valid option is no longer so widely held. And the swing away from such 1970s political correctness will continue to and beyond 2011. There will be a return to the two-adult family, and a consequent reduction in need for housing. 3.3 National Attitudes to Business The 1980s saw a deliberate attempt to change national attitudes, away from assuming that the state and local authority would 'provide' (and stifle) towards an assumption that the business would provide. This was done by elevating and encouraging business as a national activity. While we applaud to some extent the loosening of the grip of dependency culture, there have been significant unintended detrimental effects on the family as well as the environment and society. # National preception. First, the way Britain was perceived changed. No longer was it modelled on the family (e.g. of nations) but on the business; "U.K. plc." became a common phrase. # Family stress caused by business emphasis. The government's desire (and hence policies and incentives) to 'improve' business effectiveness and efficiency has led to increased stress that has harmed family life. This is the conclusion of the report published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, November 1996, which says that working long hours and stress is harming family life. Making family meals etc. has become less common. Two thirds of men were reported working unsocial hours at weekends. # Money, the measure of all things. Metrics used to measure the health of the nation are business-centred. Anything that made money flow around among people was considered good ('a healthy, growing economy'; mirrored in Cheshire 2011's emphasis on economics). Those things that did not contribute to money flow were deemed of zero value, and even penalised. Only when money was spent was it seen to be of value. (It is another, though related, issue that what money is spend on might often be worthless or even harmful, yet under this metric it is counted good.) # Family-centred activities. But many of the activities that are most strengthening to families and marriages are the kinds of activities where money is not spent - they yield just as much enjoyment to the individual as the money-centred ones, and cement family ties more. Such activities are non-economic (not uneconomic) because they do not involve money. The problem is that if Cheshire 2011 gives too much emphasis to money-centred activities then there will be bias towards developments that require money and away from those that encourage non-economic family activity. One example: many of Cheshire's lanes are currently relatively free of traffic, and hence safe for family cycle rides; but allow development of a leisure or tourist facility, and the traffic increases and the road is no longer safe. The families now jump in their cars and spend money instead. Cheshire 2011 should not encourage such developments. # Stress due to moving. During the 1980s, and to some extent during the 1970s, it was considered highly acceptable for families to uproot from area to area to serve the needs of the business community. Indeed this was encouraged by Government Ministers ("My father got on his bike and looked for work") as being required by business. It was common to find people who moved house every two years. No wonder children - and their parents - became rootless. Moving house is among the top ten stress-creating happenings in a person's life. The more land that is allocated to housing, the more houses are built and the more times people move - so the more stress people suffer. While we do of course recognise some need to move house, we believe it should not be overly *encouraged* by liberal allocations. # House is no longer home. Moreover, during the 1980s there was the general expectation that one's house was not so much a home (a family concept) as an investment (a business concept) that could be traded on a market of ever increasing hosue prices, and this also contributed to an (artificially) increased rate of house-moving. This attitude has changed; people see through the shallowness of it, and treat house more as home again. Hence less desire to move, and less need for liberal housing allocation in Cheshire 2011. # "Economic heaven; Social hell". It has been suggested that the economic growth generated by all this money- and business-centred attitude has been wasted on unnecessary extra housing and unnecessary creature comforts to compensate for a more miserable family life, with a result of a less truly prosperous nation and certainly a less happy one. More money spent on moving house means more stress and less quality of life. Therefore a liberal housing allocation will decrease Cheshire's ability to meet its objectives. 3.4 Creeping Individualism versus the Family At the root of all this is a creeping individualism, which sees the individual as the ultimate foundation of society, not the family. While the individual is important and the centre for purposeful action, and while it has sometimes been the case that family relationships have been abused and used for corrupt ends (e.g. nepotism), the family is still important. Its importance is greater than the County Council recognises in Cheshire 2011. It assumes that Cheshire residents, and even incomers and visitors, are merely individuals such as 'customers', 'consumers', 'drivers'. It makes very little reference to Cheshire's families. The family is important. It is not just a traditional conservative institution, but is the place where people learn give and take (Dennis and Erdos, 1992; note that these are socialist writers), where they have a foundation, stability, where they learn acceptance, love and forgiveness, where they learn and practice collaboration, where they learn their values, where they learn and practice loyalty, where they learn that personal convenience is not their inalienable right, and so on. Of course, many families fail to live up to these expectations, but there is still no real substitute. The individualistic ethos, on the other hand, sees the family to be of little account, merely yet another arbitrary and often temporary grouping of humans. The individual is deemed free to come and go as s/he pleases. While the individual outside the family can learn assertiveness, craftiness, street-wisdom, competitiveness, they cannot learn true love, loyalty, stability, etc. Yet it is these that are the foundation for true sustainable prosperity. Many factors contribute to creeping individualism: # The car # The expectation to leave home # The emphasis on individual career The car is the individual's form of transport, par excellence; it shields the individual from others, and promotes the feeling of independence that, while sometimes useful, is ultimately damaging when taken to the extremes we see today. (No, the car is no longer the family's means of transport: each adult has their own car today, for their own convenience.) Therefore anything that promotes use of car exacerbates the problem of creeping individualism. Cheshire 2011 should therefore not encourage yet more car use, such as by schemes to reduce congestion and encourage traffic flow. It should instead promote sustainable means of transport, especially cycling and walking. Yet it does not do so. Another contribution to individualism is the expectation that it is the ideal, if not the norm, for young people to leave home rather than stay around. In particular, many leave for university and do not return - in contrast to the Continent where many university students stay at home. Cheshire 2011 should therefore deallocate much of its housing allocation to 2011. This, of course, has been argued above. Another major factor is the emphasis on the individual business (or academic or local government) career as an individual life-choice, and the idea that moving up the career ladder is a valid and natural thing to do that justifies many other things. This emphasis is exacerbated every time that the County Council proposes more land for industrial development, and especially when it is geared toward inward investment. As we have argued in our original submission, inward investment rather than local investment means lack of loyalty, it means people coming in rather than Cheshire people getting jobs. Inward investment means, in addition, raising the proportion in Cheshire of people who have severed roots. And broken families. Therefore Cheshire 2011 should be less positive towards development related to inward investment. Creeping individualism is behind all major causes of household creation - family breakdown, the increased rate at which young people move out of the home and do not return, and the increasing isolation of elderly people (or their convenient sidelining into homes). This is because it sees each person involved as essential independent rather than related. So, if creeping individualism is tackled, even if only slightly, then it will make a useful amelioration of the problem of 'where shall we live?'. Therefore it is not valid to simply accept the breakdown of the family and expulsion of young people or the elderly as though resigned to a foregone conclusion - which will happen if the figures are treated as a mere prediction. There should be strenuous, wise, concerted, yet gentle, action to restore the national attitude back towards families, to support and help families that have become bruised. And Cheshire 2011 has a responsibility to set in place land use plans that will move us back towards family and high quality lifestyles, rather than money-oriented and individualistic ones. Andrew Basden, Klaus Armstrong-Braun, Cheshire Federation of Green Parties, 21 August 1997.