ALYN AND DEESSIDE TO 10,001 A.D. PART 2. PRINCIPLES FOR LAND-USE PLANNING IN ALYN AND DEESSIDE PRODUCTION OF THESE COMMENTS Owing to the limited time available, many of these general Šintroductory comments have been based on comments made to Warrington ŠBorough Council for their draft Local Plan. We believe that most of Šthe general comments made therein pertain in the case Alyn and ŠDeesside, and hence some have been used here with minimum alteration, Šby permission of the authors (The Cheshire Federation of Green ŠParties). However, all reasonable care has been taken to amend these Šcomments where necessary to the case of Alyn and Deesside. 1. INTRODUCTION The Alyn and Deesside District Plan starts out well, with good Šstrategy and overall aim. But from there on it is, in our opinion, a Šdisaster, in both environmental and community terms. In practice it Šwill become largely a developers' charter. We do accept that the content of development Plans is heavily Šconstrained by Government guidelines, and that many things we should Šwish to be included cannot be. However, many other recent Plans have Šbeen far more forward thinking in relation to the natural environment, Šcommunity and sustainability. The Alyn and Deeside Plan is dangerously different from the Šrecent Local Plan of neighbouring Delyn,likely to lead to considerable Šconflict, especially when the two districts merge. It will allow Šdevelopers to play off one Plan against the other, as mentioned below. ŠHaving such a difference between the Plans will also make the process Šof integration of the districts very difficult. Since the Delyn Plan Šhas already been adopted, it is this, the Alyn and Deesside Plan, that Šmust be changed if the Plans are to be reconciled. There is a growing collection of literature on land use planning, Šon which we draw, and in particular other land use plans both from Šwithin Cheshire and from around the world. The Cheshire Structure ŠPlan provides some input, as do a number of reports of the State of Šthe Environment Project. Recently Warrington Borough Council and ŠDelyn District Council have produced a Local Plan with some useful Šideas. Further afield, Dunlaoghaire Corporation in Ireland has Šrecently done the same. The city of Davis in California is perhaps Šthe leading example of an attempt at a sustainable community. For Šmany years, it has adopted radical but practical policies in an Šattempt to work out Green principles in the life of a modern city. In ŠJuly 1994 Seattle Local Plan was published, which is perhaps the Šforemost in sustainable communities. We therefore make reference to Štheir experience. Whilst it is recognised that the laws and Šconstraints in the UK differ from those in Ireland and California, the Šlatter can offer fruitful examples. While we recognise that the Plan is constrained by Government Šguidelines, such guidelines change, and many of the constraints Šcurrently in force will be removed during the life of the Plan. For Šthis reason we believe that Alyn and Deesside District Council should Šnot be afraid to put on record what policies it would like to adopt if ŠGovernment guidelines allowed. Therefore we make the following Šsuggestion. SUGGESTION: Add a section, perhaps as an appendix, containing Špolicies that would be desirable but are not allowed under the current Šregime. 2. STRATEGY AND AIMS é2a. Strategyé The strategy stated on the first page of chapter 2 is good, but Šthere is one major omission. In 2.1 we applaud the attempt to centre the Plan on recognition Šof the importance of ecological and global issues, including resource Šlimitations, increase in emissions and climate change. These were Šmajor issues identified at the Rio Summit, to which the U.K. ŠGovernment applied its signature. However one major issue covered at Rio has been omitted from 2.1, Šnamely Bio-diversity. While local issues of "landscape quality, Šwildlife conservation, environmental quality and pollution control" Šare mentioned in 2.2, we believe these are very different from Bio-diversity, for the following reasons: > ! L R a) They are essentially local issues, while Bio-diversity has a Š global connection. b) They focus on human appreciation, notably aesthetic Š appreciation, of the environment, while Bio-diversity focuses Š on wider issues of what species inhabit an area and in what Š proportions. Many such species are largely invisible to the Š casual human observer yet nevertheless vital, such as Š insects, fungi, small mammals, etc. c) Bio-diversity is more fundamental than these issues, and Š maintaining Bio-diversity in an area will tend to contribute Š to all of these issues, while the reverse is not generally Š true. d) In the 1990s the Bio-diversity of the area is low, and Š reducing, always under threat from development and intensive Š agriculture. Therefore there is an urgent need to set in Š place plans that will lead to a recovery of Bio-diversity. >----!----!----!-----------------------------------------------------R Therefore we ask that Bio-diversity be included as an explicit issue Šin 2.1, and that the Plan as a whole be more aimed to enahncing it in Šthe area. We discuss later how policy can be aimed at enhancing Bio-diversity. Furthermore, the principle of 'sustainable development' is Šdangerous. While it is a good basis for policy if we can assume that Šcomplete recycling is taking place, this assumption is manifestly not Štrue. The term, sustainable development, then is in danger of Šbecoming almost synonymous with eternal economic growth, which is Šfundamentally impossible. Therefore the term is at best ambiguous, Šand we suggest replacing it with the term, 'sustainable communities', Šwhich is discussed later, or even 'sustainable balance' as found in Š2.3, though even that term is problematical. é2b. Overall Aimé The overall aim in 2.3 sounds excellent when taken alone. It Šattaches the word 'sustainable' to 'balance', meaning that balance Šmust be sustained indefinitely. It places 'natural environment' Šfirst, for emphasis. And it recognises the needs of future as well as Špresent generations. This fits well with our theme of '10,001 A.D.'. But there are two flaws. The first is that 'balance' is not Šdefined. In practice - as is borne out in the rest of the plan - Šthose developments that happen to destroy the natural environment are Šgiven far greater weight in the balancing act. This tendency comes Šabout from the elevation of economics (including jobs) as discussed Šlater. What is needed is a term that is less ambiguous and less prone to Šrelativizing tendencies. We suggest therefore that the word 'balance' Šshould be replaced with the word 'integration', so that the aim reads Š"maintaining a sustainable integration between ..." 'Integration' is preferable for several reasons: > ! L R a) It links closely to the idea of Bio-diversity, in that Š development is seen to aid rather than hinder Bio-diversity. b) In the long run we will be forced toward some kind of Š integration, so we should plan to live with the natural world Š as the rule rather than the exception. c) A major problem today is that many people feel 'divorced' Š from the natural world and the peace it offers. Integration Š will play its part in restoring the marriage between humanity Š and the natural world. d) 'Balance' speaks of an adversarial culture and approach. Š 'Integration' speaks of a consensual approach, which is what Š we must achieve in the longer term. >----!----!----!-----------------------------------------------------R The second flaw is that we dount whether the Plan will in fact Šcontribute to the aim. In particular, we see a large discrepancy Šbetween the aim and the the objectives listed in 2.4. é2c. The wrong objectivesé We do not see how the seven objectives have arisen from the Šoverall aim, as claimed in 2.4. In fact, they are likely to work Šdirectly against the aim. First, no real 'balance' can be seen; there are five policies to Šdo with development and built environment, but only one directly Šrelevant to Bio-diversity. (The remaining objective concerns the Šaesthetics of landscape, which has little connection with Bio-diversity.) Second, the one objective relevant to Bio-diversity is near the Šbottom of the list, suggesting a low priority. Third, the first four objectives if fulfilled as stated will act Šagainst Bio-diversity and the natural environment. Fourth, words like 'sufficient', 'suitable', 'appropriate' and Š'good quality' are left undefined. The whole set of objectives is actually a collection of Šindependent pieces which act against each other and do not form a Šcoherent whole. We now examine each objective in turn. é2d. Residential accomodationé Residential accomodation in 'suitable locations'. 'Suitable' Šwill in practice be interpreted to mean 'suitable for the housing Šmarket', not 'suitable for maintaining Bio-diversity'. This objective Šis likely to lead to pressure from housebuilders to 'use' land that is Šof high value for Bio-diversity, namely many 'derelict' pieces of Šland. Further, the types of houses that are popular today tend to lead Što increase in energy consumption - they are spacious, they are not Šterraced, they are located in such a way that people are forced to use Štheir cars to reach amenities such as shops, schools and leisure, and Što reach their place of work. This goes directly against the strategy Šoutlined in 2.1, namely the concern with climate change. é2e. 'Provide sufficient good quality employment'é Provision of good quality jobs is an excellent aim, but it needs Šmore precise definition. First, there is a danger that the emphasis Šwill in practice be placed on 'provision' at the expense of 'good Šquality'. That is, any development that 'provides' jobs of any kind Šwill be favourably looked upon, even if the jobs are of poor quality Šor do not help the local community in any real way. In recent years Šthe larger developers especially have learned to speak the language of Šjobs as though they were some kind of currency. Is it really likely Šthat a development application would be turned down because the jobs Šit offers are of poor quality? Of course not. The Times of 1st July Š1994 showed how the policy of attracting inward investment into Wales Šhas in fact reduced the quality of Welsh jobs and increased resentment Šat being "little more than an English colony." Second, how do we measure quality of job? Making plastic Šflowers, selling insurance, baking bread, driving a bus, manning a Šcheckout, giving legal advice, editing a newspaper, running a church, Šmanaging a chemical plant all have different quality. We suggest the Š'quality' of a job should include some idea of its permanence, its Šnecessity, the contribution it makes to the community, the lack of Šnegative wider impact it may have. Therefore we wish to focus on such Šthings rather than nebulous idea of 'good quality employment'. Third, are the jobs for local people, or for incomers? It is Šbeing recognised that merely creating jobs at a high level in the Šcareer ladder often means that people are brought in to fill them; the Šlocal community - and the District - finds little or no net benefit. ŠTherefore we wish to focus on community, rather than on jobs. Fourth, there is a fundamental problem in treating jobs as a Šcommodity to be 'provided'. 'Jobs' is a shorthand for human Šfunctioning in the economic sphere. Jobs are what we do, not things Što be provided. The quality of jobs should not be made an aim since it is an Šoutcome. Again, we wish to focus on community, rather than on jobs, Šsince this will tend to result in higher quality jobs. Or, more Šprecisely, in raising the quality as defined above of what people do Što make a living. é2f. Transport systemé First, what does 'efficient' mean? We suspect that it will be Šinterpreted to mean 'minimum time spent in travelling a given Šdistance', i.e. to lower congestion on roads by providing more road Šspace. In fact this works directly against a more important type of Šefficiency, namely energy efficiency. Provision of more road space Šmeans attracting people onto the roads, both in the short term, as Špeople perceive that a road is easier to use, and in the longer term, Šas people and firms locate further away because of the existence of a Š'good' road. Second, "facilities for both public and private transport" will Šmean in practice that private transport wins out, as it always has for Šthe last few decades. This part of the objective will mean yet Šfurther spiralling decline in public transport. Private transport Šshould not be part of the objective. Thirdly, "integrate the transport system with the area's main Šland uses" is likely to mean "building more access roads to all kinds Šof places in the countryside, and providing ever more bypasses and Štrunk roads to link distant industrial and commercial estates that Šhave been allowed to sprout up." We are led to this pessimistic Šinterpretation because this objective is followed by objective 2.4.4. ŠSuch an outcome would be a disaster in terms both of global climate Šchange, and of Bio-diversity. Instead of this objective, the Šobjective should be to locate new development at the existing Štransport system, especially rail. é2g. Shops and recreation facilitiesé "To assist provision of shops and other community facilities" is Šgood at first sight, because the area's communities need Šencouragement. But in practice this objective is likely to mean Šwidespread development, and, taken with objective 2.4.3, this means Šmore and more roadspace, including parking space. The word "appropriate" might ameliorate these problems if it were Šproperly defined explicitly to prevent such problems. We do support an objective that would re-invigorate local Šcommunities, including the placement of shops and other facilities Šwhere they are lacking, but the objective should be worded differently Šand have a different focus. This is discussed below under éSustainable ŠCommunitiesé. é2h. Environmental protectioné "Best features" is not defined and the rest of the objective Šleads us to fear that what is meant here is largely aesthetics. As Šmentioned above, aesthetics of landscape has little connection with ŠBio-diversity. In fact often the most aethetically pleasing landscape Šis impoverished in Bio-diversity, and the most Bio-diverse habitats Šcan be found in landscapes normally considered 'eyesores', such as Šlong-unused land. In particular "removal or enhancement of any unsightly or Šdegraded landscape" is dangerous in this respect. Sanitised landscape Šloses Bio-diversity. This objective is wrongly directed, in that it seems to want to Šprotect the environment for humanity's sake, our pleasure and Šrecreation, rather than for its own sake, for Bio-diversity. God's Šcreation has a value of its own, not just in relation to humankind. é2i. Nature conservationé This objective is good, as far as it goes. But we have two Šquestions. One is that the approach of safeguarding areas, while Šnecessary at this time, is not the final answer. As argued below, the Šobjective should be to link areas of high Bio-diversity with wildlife Šcorridors in order that they can be self-perpetuating. We have to Šlearn to live with the ecosphere in an integrated way, not separate it Šoff into 'protected' areas and then sacrifice the remainder to Šdevelopment. The other question is: does Alyn and Deesside Council truly Šbelieve in this objective, or are they merely paying lip service to Šconform with DoE PPGs? é2j. Protect built Environmenté We generally support this objective, because it is important to Šmaintain the ambience of an area. But what does "best" mean? Often Šthe features which are most important to the local community are those Šwhich are not considered important by 'specialists'. The similarity of wording to 2.4.5 suggests that the authors od Šthe Plan do not really understand the natural environment and Bio-diversity. é2k. Towards better objectivesé We therefore object to the whole of 2.4 on the grounds that it is Šnot in accord with the aim as stated in 2.3. What is needed is a set of objectives which work together to Šfulfil the stated aim, and do so in an integrated manner. We suggest Šbelow what such objectives might be. We base them on an understanding Šof what are the major problems facing us today, which can be Šameliorated or exacerbated by land use policies. We do not believe Šthat they differ greatly in content from those put forward in the ŠPlan, but rather that they differ in approach. But, before we derive these major land use issues we must make Štwo more comments on the Plan. é3. Environmental Impacté We object to 2.5 to 2.7 on the grounds that it is not in accord Šwith PPG 12. PPG 12 requires that a Council, in the preparation of a ŠDevelopment Plan, must carry out an environmental appraisal of all its Špolicies and how they impact the environment. This has not been done. This should be done before the final version is produced. (The ŠHMSO publication, éEnvironmental Appraisal of Development Plans: A good Špractice guideé would be useful reading.) é4. On the link between development, conservation and economicsé Paragraph 2.6 states that "the process of development and Šconservation are not incompatible." We agree. Though it may be Šthought from the above that we are negative towards development, this Šis not true. Our disagreement is not with development itself, but with the Šapproach to it. The conventional approach, as found in this Plan, is Šthat economic growth (as measured by GNP/GDP) is the fundamental and Šnecessary aim, and so development according to market demands is Šnecessary or at least the ideal, and that conservation is added as an Šafterthought and as a constraint. Our approach is that sustainable integration and enhancement of Šboth human community and Bio-diversity are of the prime importance, Šespecially when we consider the future, which the Overall Aim purports Što do. If development and all human activity are sensitively Šintegrated with the natural environment then the needs of Bio- Šdiversity and those of the community and economy support each other Šand go hand in hand, rather than being constraints upon each other. ŠIt is a fact that looking after the environment is labour intensive, Šso stimulating the local economy, and also is creative and satisfying, Šso providing good quality employment. Further, it is locally owned, Šlocally controlled and locally carried out, meaning that the necessary Šinvestment is found locally and not brought in, as mentioned above. ŠWith such jobs, money stays in the local community rather than leaking Što the outside. Thus our approach sees the establishment of a very Šdynamic and robust economy, continual sensitive development and Šenvironmentally sensitive integration, all leading to sustainable Šcommunities. The outcome is what many desire: 'sustainable Šdevelopment' but of a type that is genuine and productive rather than Ša type that exists merely in GNP/GDP. é5 Five major land use issues: new objectivesé From this, five major land-use issues emerge as those on which to Šbase Green land-use principles for Alyn and Deesside: a) Transport b) Community c) Economic and other criteria d) The natural world e) Global responsibility f) Dee Estuary. (There are other Green issues, but they have not been included, either Šbecause they are not relevant to land-use, not relevant to Alyn and ŠDeesside and its Corporate Aims, or because the Plan already shows Šadequate awareness of them. De-intensivisation of agriculture is a Šmajor land-use issue, but has not been included here since the ŠDistrict is not primarily agricultural. Local pollution, landscape Šconservation and heritage preservation are not discussed here since Šthe Plan carries awareness of them. Therefore, the absence of a topic Šfrom the discussions below should not be taken to mean that we think Šit unimportant.) While in each case there are factors that affect these five Šissues that are outside the control of the District Council, and in Šparticular outside the remit of a Land Use Plan, there are nevertheless Ša number of important contributions that can be made in each area by Šthe Land Use Plan. Some of these are direct, and have been made the Šsubject of various policies proposed in the deposit Plan, but others Šmake their contribution indirectly, and the Plan needs to take account Šof them. We will now look at each in turn. ƒ3. TRANSPORT é3.1 Road use is a problemé Transport is a major issue since high road use is the single Šlargest contributor to global warming. (While power stations Šcontribute the largest amount of carbon dioxide, road transport also Šcontributes nitrogen oxides and other pollutants, which makes it the Šlargest contributor to global warming overall.) As outlined, for Šinstance, in the Cheshire County Council's éState of the Environment ŠProject: Transporté report, there are many other major problems stemming Šfrom high road use - personal, social, environmental, local, national, Šinternational and global. Some of the problems are due to actual use Šof cars and lorries, while others are due to road building. High road use works directly against the Overall Aim and Strategy Šin the Plan. The quality of the local environment is severely Šdamaged: damage to buildings and infrastructure, destruction of Šwildlife habitats and SSSIs, barriers to wildlife. A study of the M56 Šin Cheshire which showed that only 7% of marked Orangetip butterflies Šever crossed the carriageway while they freely moved along the side of Šit (Source: Stephen Mills, New Scientist, 20th Feb 1986). It Šjeopardises creation of good quality jobs for Alyn and Deesside Špeople, in that easy entry to Alyn and Deesside by road means that Špeople from elsewhere can take Alyn and Deesside jobs, and the higher Šquality jobs 'created' by the large incomer firms are often filled by Špeople brought in. It severely damages quality of life: noise, Špollution, fumes, more accidents, difficulty in walking or cycling Šaround Alyn and Deesside, reduction in mobility of the car-less, the Šdeadening of community as fewer people walk and more people seldom see Štheir neighbours as they drive out in the morning and back at night. It is recognised - ever more widely recognised - that urgent and Šconcerted action needs to be taken to reduce the level of road use, and Šthat land use planning has an important part to play in this. The link Šbetween land use and transport modes is now becoming abundantly clear. Indeed, the Panel of the Examination in Public of Cheshire 2001 Šseems to believe that nearby Cheshire County Council should move Šfaster in these matters even now. It has said, > ! L R "The implicit assumption in 'Cheshire 2001' that the use of Š the car will inevitably grow is also one which may seem less Š obviously true in the latter part of the Plan period than it Š does today. We suggest that this assumption should be re- Š examined ..." >-----!----!----!-----------------------------------------------------R We have to reverse a trend that has built up over the past few Šdecades, and that will be no easy job. During this period it has been Šassumed that it is everybody's right to own and use a car or lorry and Šgo where he pleases and as free from inconvenience and congestion as he Šwishes. People's habits have changed in response to the ease of road Šuse. There have been economic incentives for road use, such as company Šcars and externalising of the costs of such things as road accidents Š(for which the NHS pays an annual bill of five billion pounds, to say Šnothing of the lost production and disruption to family life that these Šaccidents cause). How can we reverse this trend? First, while some of these Šfactors are outwith the remit of a Local Plan, the Plan can make an Šimportant contribution either to exacerbate the problem or to Šameliorate it. Second, if District and County Councils are seen to be Štrying to ameliorate the problems and actively resisting the trend to Šever higher road use, then central Government will gradually take note Š- as indicated by the Department of Environment Inspector's comments Šabove. Indeed they are taking note, as evidenced by the stated aim of Šreducing global warming emissions to the level that pertained in 1990. ŠWe discuss its implications below. The aim of the Alyn and Deesside Plan should therefore be Štwofold. To reduce total transport and to cause a shift toward more Šecologically sustainable forms of transport - walking, cycling, trains, Šwater and bus. While overtly transport policies are important, other Šsections of the Plan probably have greater effect, albeit indirect as Šoutlined in 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 below. In our comments , we deliberately take a hard line on the issue Šof road use because it is necessary to reverse - not just slow down - Šthe trend to increasing road use. And, given people's current penchant Šfor using their cars without thinking, there is a need to give them Šclear incentives for changing their habits. é3.2 Wrong Positioning Generates Trafficé One of the mistakes of the past has been to to site facilities Šand developments in such a way that people are forced to use their Šcars. Until recently, there has been a tendency to zone types of Šdevelopment, and to encourage out-of-town retail and business Šdevelopments. This has been a major mistake. In future there should be more integration of different land use Štypes, instead of the zoning that has been the norm for the last few Šdecades. So people should find it more feasible to walk to work, Šshops, school, etc. This means that employment and retail development Šshould be welcomed, rather than prevented, in residential areas. And Šhouses should be built in the commercial centres, and within such Šplaces as Sealand industrial estate and in the proposed Deesside ŠDevelopment Zone. Of course, there are obvious problems with such an Šapproach, but none that cannot be overcome with a little thought. And Šsuch an approach will yield other benefits, such as more sustainable Šcommunities and re-humanisation of the town centres. See below. Major developments, of course do not fit into this approach. So Šanother approach is needed for them: such developments should be sited Šas far as possible next to railway lines; see below. é3.3 Better Road Facilities Generate Trafficé If we make it easier and more attractive for people to use road Štransport, then road use will increase. In the short term, people will Šmore likely make journeys that they perceive as easy, and will tend to Šlengthen their journeys. In the longer term, firms will tend to locate Šfurther from their suppliers and customers, housing will be located Šfurther from shops, large superstores will locate further from where Špeople live. All because the roads are better. It hardly need be Špointed out how the M 25 - designed to speed up and facilitate road Štraffic round and through London - has become the world's largest car Špark because it has generated so much traffic. Closer at home, it should be obvious by now that provision of yet Šmore roadway does not solve Alyn and Deesside's transport problems. ŠThe Aston Hill bypass attracted more local traffic, and this has, if Šanything increased rather than decreased congestion and other problems, Šand it does not seem to have contributed significantly to Alyn and ŠDeesside's economic prosperity or level of "good quality employment". ŠIt is at best short-sighted to think that more of the same - yet more Šroadspace and better facilities for drivers - will solve or ameliorate ŠAlyn and Deesside's problems. This means that the temptation to improve roads, build new road Šschemes and improve facilities for drivers should be resisted. While Šsuch schemes may reduce the single problem of congestion for a few Šyears, they lead to a net increase in road usage, which exacerbates all Šthe other problems. Car parking facilities should not be over- Šgenerous. Developments should not be located near the trunk road Šsystem, since this encourages people to reach them by car. Surprising - and even cruel - though it may seem, congestion Šshould perhaps be seen as the planner's friend, not an enemy. é3.4 Developments that Generate Trafficé Some developments generate traffic by their very nature. A Šdrive-through burger bar, a large out-of-town superstore, yet another Šgolf course in the country, all generate new traffic that did not exist Šbefore. The important thing is that while some such developments are Šnecessary, the majority, strictly speaking, are not. If there is no Šdrive-through burger bar then people will find something else to eat, Šand many of those will walk or cycle to find it. If there is no out- Šof-town superstore then people will shop more locally or in the town Šcentres, and thus more often walk, cycle or travel by train or bus. If Šthe umpteenth golf course application is turned down, then it merely Šmeans that some people who would otherwise use their afternoons playing Šgolf might do other things instead that do not require the use of a Šcar. So, many car journeys are then not undertaken. What this means is that, generally, the Local Plan need not cater Šfor developments that by their nature generate new traffic. The Plan Šshould distinguish between those that are necessary and those that are Šnot. If there is no golf course at all near Alyn and Deesside then Šprovision of one could be seen as necessary and might actually shorten Šthe journeys of those who play golf. But in many recent cases, Šapplications for golf course development is largely opportunistic over- Šsupply and can hardly be said to be necessary. Yes, we are aware that such facilities look good to the ŠDistrict's accountants, in attracting more people in to spend money Šthat then comes in as rates etc. But that is false and one-sided Šlogic, as discussed below. é3.5 We need to Plan for Reduced Road Useé As mentioned above the Department of the Environment states that Šthe Plan must not assume that car use will continue to increase Šindefinitely. Central Government is slowly waking up to the need to Šmove away from demand-led road policy, towards one that is more plan- Šled. While the Department of Transport is still blind to ecological Šrealities, the Department of the Environment is becoming enlightened. But how does that translate into Plan policies? We want to be Šmore specific. The Government has stated that it wants global warming Šemissions reduced to their 1990 levels within the next few years. ŠWhile we believe that this target is too conservative and will have to Šbe lowered in the near future, it is the one we have been given to work Šwith. We suggest that this means that the Plan should deliberately Šplan for 1990 levels of traffic, and not one car or lorry more. If we Šplan for more then we are deliberately going against the Government's Šown target. But, some might say, will not cars become more efficient, so that Šmore of them can produce the same level of emissions? It is dangerous Šand unwise to rely of that being the case. First, it is unlikely that Šthere will any further significant increases in efficiency (that is, of Šan order of magnitude); most increases from here will be marginal, Šsmall percentages. Second, it rests on the assumption that journey Šlengths and numbers will remain the same. This has manifestly not been Šso. Partly because of the traffic-generating effect of better and more Šroads, as discussed above. "But, we must deal with this or that horrible congestion," some Šwill say. Yes, but the way to deal with congestion is not to build Šbetter roads but to reduce the amount of travelling that people do. As Šdiscussed above, congestion may be a planner's friend. Yet others might ask, do we really have to be so 'down' on the Šmotorist? Can we not reduce road use by installing a better public Štransport system? Briefly, no. First, who will pay for it? Second, Šit has been found repeatedly that even the best public transport does Šnot really attract significant numbers of people from their cars - Šunless it also happens that driving is an unpleasant experience due to Šcongestion etc. Third, we are not just talking about the motorist, but Šabout the truck driver as well; we are talking about freight as well as Špeople. Fourth - as the Road Lobby and the Department of Transport so Šoften is pleased to point out - even if the use of trains doubles, the Šreduction in car use will reduce by only one eighth; so public Štransport can hardly be the answer by itself. So, if we are to have any confidence about hitting the ŠGovernment's target then the Plan must assume and cater for no more Šthan 1990 levels of road use. What this means is - generally - there Šmust be no new roads. Even minor road improvements must be considered Švery carefully. é3.6 Plan for Rail Accessé However, public transport does have an important part to play. ŠWhile we must reduce the need for travel in total, we must also ensure Šthat as large a proportion as possible of the travelling that still Šneeds to be done, can be done by more ecological modes such as cycling Š(see later) and train or (for freight) water. The Inspector at the Cheshire 2001 Examination In Public Šrecommended, > ! L R "We also consider that the importance of rail access - Š potential as well as existing - could be important in Š securing the environmental acceptability of many of the Š development proposals in the Plan, and that it should assume Š a role of rather greater importance in the County Council's Š on-going planning than has perhaps hitherto been the case." >-----!----!----!-----------------------------------------------------R What this means is that as many developments as possible must be Šwithin easy reach of the rail network. This is true for both Špassengers and freight. While little can be done in the short term to Šmake this so for much existing development, the Plan can ensure that it Šis true for all new development. Or, at least, for all new large Šdevelopments. It should ensure that all new large developments are Šsited only next to railway lines. Note that we do not say "existing railway stations" but "railway Šlines". This is because we are looking to the future rather than the Špresent. Note the word, 'potential', in the Inspector's comment. At Špresent, many people jump in their cars out of habit and would not use Ša train service even if available. At present, many firms are geared Šup to receive their raw materials and distribute their products by road Šand (as the CharterRail and other recent experiences have shown) would Šnot use rail even if available. But it will not always be like that. Š(For evidence that people and firms will change their car-using habits, Šand come to like the change, see the insert below on Groningen.) In Šthe future people and firms will want to move to using rail - and we Šbelieve this will start during the lifetime of this Plan. To do this, Šthey will need access to the rail network - to build new stations for Špassengers and to put in new sidings for freight. All larger developments - residential, retail, employment or Šleisure - must therefore be sited next to the rail network. Of course, there is an alternative to this, which is relevant to Šthe Deeside Development Zone. At present it has no direct access to a Šrailway line. So, instead, the route of one should be identified in Šthe plan, linking it to the existing network. And that route must be Šprotected. The same should be done for all existing sizable Šdevelopments away from existing railway lines, such as Castle Cement ŠDevelopment Zone. Route for rail access into all parts of Hawarden ŠAirport Development Zone should be earmarked. é3.7 Protect Rail Trackbedé The easiest way to identify the route for a new railway line is Što use old rail trackbed. There are many disused lines which could be Šbrought back into use at a cost far less than building a complete new Šline. These must be protected from development that would otherwise Šjeopardise their future use. North of Manchester, a housing estate was Šallowed to be built across the old line to Bury - so there is no Špossibility now of a direct train route from that area to Manchester. ŠThere is only a roundabout route, with train changes, and it is no Šwonder that people find it much quicker and convenient to use their Šcars. Similarly, all possibility of a rail route from Oxford to ŠCambridge has now been destroyed. What this means is that no development that harms existing rail Štrackbed (i.e. disused lines) must be allowed. é3.8 Alyn and Deesside Cycle Districté The other main ecological alternative to the car is the bicycle. ŠIndeed, it might have more of an impact than the train. Cycling, here, Šis seen as a means of transport, not just as a leisure activity, though Šit undoubtedly is the latter. The Cheshire County Council State of the Environment Project Š(Transport), warmed to the idea that one of Cheshire's town should be Šear-marked for development as a cyclists town. In a similar way, Alyn Šand Deesside could become a cycling district. It does seem to be a Šgood choice because it is relatively flat and because cycling would Šmake a significant difference. Cycling is not only more ecological and Šhealthier than car driving but also more economic to the Local ŠAuthority. This was demonstrated in Holland's sixth largest city, Groningen. ŠThey have found that "planning for the bicycle is cheaper than planning Šfor the car." It requires much less to be spent on roads, and it Šboosts jobs and business. Businesses, though at first against car Šrestraint, now want more restraint. Since it reversed its transport Špolicy in 1977, to favour the bicycle, Groningen has boomed. Its Šearlier population outflow has reversed, and rents are high. People Šand businesses actively want to locate in Groningen. It is a city of Š170,000 population, almost exactly the same size as Alyn and Deesside. ŠSee the enclosed newspaper article (Independent, 12th June 1993). Of course, Alyn and Deesside and Groningen are different, and it Šis unrealistic to expect Alyn and Deesside to gain as high a usage of Šthe bicycle as Groningen during the Plan period. But important steps Šcould - and should - be made in that direction, using the City of ŠGroningen (and our own City of Cambridge) as an example. We urge the ŠDistrict Council to contact the City Council in Groningen (and ŠCambridge) for advice and to gain a true picture of the costs, benefits Šand methodology of catering for cycling and restraining the car. We note that the Plan only "supports" greater use of cycles. ŠInstead the policy should be much stronger, and there should be Šprovision of cycleways, either through the Council's own means or Šthrough Section 106 agreements and Planning Gain. Creating a Cycling District is more than a matter of land-use Šplanning, of course. A cycling culture needs to be encouraged to grow. ŠThe cycle-based part of the local economy needs to be encouraged, Šsupported and, where necessary, receive some pump-priming. One must go Šslowly enough to take the population in general with one, but one must Šalso go fast enough to ensure reaching the goal of a healthier Špopulation and the better quality of life that that brings, higher Šquality environment, and the provision of higher quality jobs. In Šshort, aiming at a Cycling District will get us a lot nearer to the ŠDistrict Council's Overall Aim of a correct balance. One major problem, of course, is that Clwyd County has no policy Šon cycling. They say there is no need, nor demand for cycling. This Šflies in the face of the facts. The sale of bicycles, for instance, Šhas outstripped the sale of cars for several years in the U.K. Land-use planning will, of course, play an important part in Šeither hindering the fostering of a cycling culture or building it. ŠGroningen has acted to dig up a number of erstwhile highways, narrowing Šother roads, closing others, so that cars, while not banned, have to Šmake long detours. A 'fine mesh' cycling network has been established, Šwhich makes cycling convenient, fast, healthy and fun. The more people Šcycle, the safer it has become. Such a scheme would be highly practical and advantageous in Alyn Šand Deesside. In particular we would like to see implemented during Šthis Plan period a cycleway from Saltney, through Broughton, Manor ŠLane, Old Chester Road, Sandicroft, Queensferry, Shotton, to Connah's ŠQuay. This would link with the proposed Chester cycleway. „4. COMMUNITY é4.1 Sustainable Communitiesé Community speaks of the way in which the people in the District Šlive and work together, and the feel and attitude they have. The big Šissue here is what are called éSustainable Communitiesé. Recent years Šhave seen much damage to community in the District; like most districts Šat this end of the Twentieth Century, its community is far from Šsustainable. The centre has become busy but dead. Community is a Šmajor land use issue since the sense of community and the degree of its Šsustainability are either encouraged or destroyed by decisions about Šwhat type of development goes where. Note that the concept of Sustainable Communities goes beyond that Šof the recently fashionable one of 'sustainable development'. The Šlatter assumes that development is the prime aim, and the only problem Šis how to ensure that one can sustain development activity over the Šlong term. More important is the question of how to sustain Alyn and ŠDeesside's communities over the long term, so as to reduce problems Šlike vandalism, enhance people's pride in the area, encourage and Šenable people's natural tendency to self-help and neighbour spirit. ŠDevelopment is only one part of a community's activities. But here we Šoutline briefly what is meant by 'Sustainable Communities', and what Šthis means for the Alyn and Deesside District Plan. Briefly, in a Sustainable Community, 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 Šenvironment. 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 Šachieve all of them. Perhaps the community closest to it at present is ŠDavis, California, which has had more than a decade of Green-dominated Šgovernment and attempts at putting such ideas into practice. It thus Šoffers an important showpiece, giving both examples to follow and Šerrors to avoid. We will make some reference to the Davis experience Šin the rest of our comments. Obviously, in the United Kingdom, an island such as the Orkney ŠMainland is the most likely place to find anything approaching a ŠSustainable Community. But it is a mistake to think that only such Šcommunities can be sustainable. While Alyn and Deesside as a whole is Štoo large to assume many of the above characteristics, it contains Šsmaller parts, each of which can be much more sustainable than they are Šat present. And it is the responsibility of the Local Plan to move Štowards patterns of land use that encourage and enable Alyn and ŠDeesside's communities to be more sustainable, and discourage Šunsustainable practices. Let us explore how Alyn and Deesside could move closer to the Šabove goals. 1. People centre their lives there. That is, in each community Šthere should be more local employment, shops, schools, leisure, Šworship, etc. The opposite of zoning and out-of-town shopping centres. ŠAlso, the opposite of drawing all retail into the centre. All new Šhousing allocations must have employment and retail, etc. All new Šindustrial allocations should also have housing. More housing should Šbe brought back into the centre. 'Living Cities'. 'Free' leisure Šinterests such as local walking should be recognised, encouraged and Šplanned for. Not all the good things in life have a monetary label Šattached. Encourage cycling and walking, and discourage use of cars by Šunder- rather than over-provision of roads. 2. People find most of their needs met there. Obviously, some Šneeds can only be satisfied on a regional basis. But many could be met Šat the community level. Requires similar things to (1) above. As John ŠGummer has recently stated, small closes of executive houses damage Šcommunity since they are too small and segregated. 3. People actively participate in decisions. Not so much a land Šuse policy, except: how easy is it for people to reach the places where Šdecisions are made? Is a community hall or centre available? 4. People care for their locality. This means two things. One Šis that the boundaries of the community must be easily perceived, so Šthey know - and feel - what to care for. (The downside of well defined Šboundaries, of course, is snobbishness, exclusion, etc. These are Šproducts of a human condition for which perhaps the best word is the Šold-fashioned one: sin. As such, the problem, and thus the solution, Šis not a land use issue but a spiritual one.) The other is that people Šmust have incentive to care. They must not feel threatened, for Šinstance by encroachment from insensitive development. Boundaries Šhelp. 5. People's responsibilities are not hidden from them. If a Šlocal firm neglects its pollution or noise control then this should be Šimmediate obvious to the local community, so that they have a strong Šincentive to rectify the mistake. Segregating them to sites where Štheir pollution and noise seems to be less of a nuisance removes the Šnecessary incentives and sense of responsibility. "The price of Šfreedom is eternal vigilance." Similar principles apply to the Šindividual householder. 6. There is variety in ages, occupations, building types, etc. ŠMix types, size and cost of housing. Housebuilders are becoming aware Šof this now. A useful policy is that no housing development should be Šmore than 12 houses in size. This helps to ensure that the new is Šmixed with the old, and is spread throughout the District. Villages Šare rejuvenated but in a sensitive and gradual way. Another useful Špolicy is to build small numbers of housing for rent, dotted here and Šthere, rather than in housing estates. 30% of the houses built during Šthe past year were self-built; this is a welcome trend and the Plan Šshould acknowledge it. 7. All land-use directly relates to the community. While there Šare obviously valid exceptions to this rule, there are far too many Šexceptions at present. Alyn and Deesside has far too many 'national' Šand 'international' organisations for its own good. Such companies Šhave no loyalty to the community, or even the District, and can exert Šunacceptable blackmail pressure to obtain favourable treatment from the ŠDistrict Council and other bodies. Even though they may offer 'jobs' Šin the short term, in the longer term - and even in the short term, Šsome would argue - the price is not worth paying. 8. The community is in balance with local and global Šenvironment. Ideally, this means much more of Alyn and Deesside's food Šand other resources should be produced locally, but it is recognised Šthat such a goal is unlikely to be achieved in the near future. ŠHowever, one important factor is that the amount of land available for Šnon-human species should not be decreased. Any land 'developed' should Šbe matched by an equal amount of land released from development and Šrestored to a natural state. Also, care should be taken to plan, build Šand maintain 'greenways'; this is discussed below. What has been Šcalled the Tragedy of the Commons (below) should be recognised. ŠEncourage allotments. 9. The community is dynamic, yet steady-state in its make-up. ŠAll the above does not imply a fossilization, but rather a more robust Šand healthy community that has a greater capacity to release people and Šfirms to relocate elsewhere, and absorb incomers. But this means that Šstrenuous vigilance is maintained to ensure that no one firm or Šcommercial sector dominates the community. Before letting any large Šfirm settle or expand, the question should be asked: "What would the Šeffect be on the District if that firm suddenly disappeared?" While Šthis is much more than a land use question, it has implications for Šland use. Communities take decades to form, of course, and cannot be Šcreated overnight. But their formation can be helped or hindered by Šland use planning. é4.2 Cooperate with Neighboursé It has been suggested that the idea of Sustainable Communities is Šthe opposite of that of interdependent communities, which seems to have Šinformed planning decisions for the last few decades. While there is Šone very important way in which that is so, discussed below, they Šshould not be seen as complete opposites. In the idea of Sustainable ŠCommunities the separateness of communities is emphasised, but only in Šorder to remind us of things that have in recent decades become Šforgotten. Interdependence of the right kind is good and healthy. There Šshould be a layering of provision in any community. The more basic and Šnecessary things should be provided more locally, but the less Šnecessary things need not even be provided by each and every District. ŠIt is important that surrounding Districts and their facilities should Šbe taken into account in formulating the Local Plan. The Plan should Šnot see neighbours as competitors for such things as investment. If a Šlarge firm locates a few miles on the Delyn side of the border rather Šthan the Alyn and Deesside side then this should not be seen as a loss Što Alyn and Deesside. The proximity of that firm to people in Alyn and ŠDeesside is still, realistically speaking, perfectly adequate. A good example can be found in the Plan of Dunlaoghaire in ŠIreland. Their Plan states that if no suitable land is found within Štheir areas, they will seek to locate it in a neighbouring area if that Šarea so wishes. (Non-competitive) The authors came across a bad example of the wrong type of Šparochiality in the Local Plan of another District. One of their main Štowns has a rather bleak shopping centre (arguably because of stupid Šplanning decisions in previous years) and is only a few miles from the Šsouthern border of the District. Their Plan involved doing as much as Špossible to welcome retail investment in that town, to the detriment of Šother things. But what it failed to take account of was that just Šacross the border is another, larger town to which many people would Šnaturally go for their shopping. The encouragement of investment was Šcompletely misplaced. Another example came up in the Cheshire Structure Plan. The ŠCounty Council suggested that Cheshire, already in a favoured position Šin the North West, should stand to gain even more, on the grounds that Šit could then perhaps attract some of the 'prosperity' from the South ŠEast. While there was some logic in this (before the recession hit the ŠSouth East!), it actually meant that the gap between Cheshire and Šsurrounding areas would be exacerbated. The County Council was Šcriticised by the Inspector at the Examination in Public for taking a Šparochial attitude. There is another aspect of neighbourliness. Not only must we Šavoid a competitive spirit, but Plans should positively seek Šintegration with neighbours. We note that the recent Delyn Local Plan Šcontains some policies that are very different from ones contained in Šthis Plan. Some indication of where this is the case is given as an Šappendix. The danger of allowing two very different Plans in Šneighbouring districts is that of allowing developers to play one Šcouncil against the other. Similarity provides strength. This is Šespecially important in view of the amalgamation of the two districts Šinto a Unitary Authority. é4.3 The Tragedy of the Commonsé The way in which the idea of Sustainable Communities is the Šopposite of interdependence is in trying to foster a sense of Šresponsibility. Interdependence emphasises that I do not have to be Šresponsible for supplying all my needs; other communities will supply Šthem for me. (And I can call for better roads to the communities Šfurther away in order to obtain them.) While the sharing of resources Šis important, as discussed above, there is a tendency to lose a sense Šof responsibility. Today there are many technical, economic, cultural Šand political developments that push us towards an irresponsible type Šof interdependence, at the expense of sustainability. The Local Plan Šshould therefore seek to pull the other way, towards sustainability. One of the big issues in Sustainable Communities is what Garrett ŠHardin (éThe Environmental Handbooké, ed. J. Barr, Pan, 1971) called The ŠTragedy of the Commons. Though it is over twenty years since he wrote Šabout it, it is still relevant today - perhaps even more so - and worth Šquoting in full: > L R éPicture a pasture open to all. ... As a rational being, each Š herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or Š implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the Š utility to émeé of adding one more animal to my herd?" This Š utility has one negative and one positive component. The Š positive component is a function of the increment of one Š animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from Š the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is Š nearly +1. The negative component is a function of the Š additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, Š however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the Š herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision- Š making herdsman is only a fraction of -1. Adding together Š the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman Š concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is Š to add another animal to his herd. And another, and another Š ... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every Š rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the Š tragedy."é >-----!----!----!-----------------------------------------------------R This speaks of the cumulative impact. When the Plan thinks in Šterms of preventing only 'significant' increases in traffic, pollution, Šcongestion or whatever, this is relative. Each individual planning Šapplication will not in itself 'significantly' increase the problem, Šbut several taken together over the Plan period will result in a very Šsignificant cumulative increase. More than that, though, the rate of increase rises, since one Štends to think in terms of percentage increases. The Tragedy of the Commons brings us back to the importance of Šresponsibility. We cannot allow a completely individualistic approach, Šin which each development is seen in isolation, and each road Šimprovement is seen in isolation. The Local Plan has a duty to Šencourage a sense of cumulative responsibility in development, so that Šthe Tragedy of the Commons is not so marked. é4.4 Sensitive Integrationé There is a tendency to be protectionist, protecting people's Šliving space from 'nasty' industry or whatever. A protectionist attitude leads to zoning, which separates one use Šof land from another sometimes by a considerable distance. Such policy Šgoes hand in hand with 'economies of scale', centralising resources and Šfacilities and distancing them from their users. This type of approach Šhas three main drawbacks. First, as discussed above, it forces people Što use their cars to obtain their facilities, since they are no longer Šin walking distance. Second, it reduces the level of interest in the Šlocal community, replacing it with uniformity. Third, and perhaps more Šfundamental, it removes from the perpetrators of noise, dirt and Štraffic any feeling of responsibility and incentive to clean up their Šact. They are a long way from where people live, so they can be as Šnoisy as they like and release as much pollution as is within the law, Šand generate as much traffic as the roads will allow. When such an Šattitude takes root in a (regional or local) community the community Šsuffers. While there is a genuine need for some measure of protection, Šespcecially from those developments that are necessary but inherently Šnoisy and dirty, we feel the pendulum is too far over and needs to be Šbrought back to centre. We need to ensure that such developments have Šan immediate sense of repsonsibility. We need to enhance the variety Šin each immediate community in terms not only of visual appearance but Šalso of human activity. We need to plan so that it is at least Špossible to walk to where we want to get to, even if not everybody will Šdo so. Of course, their will be many cases when this is not feasible, Šsuch as for large facilities, but at least the pendulum could be swung Šback a little by modification of some policies. The key to success in such an approach is sensitive integration. ŠThis is a sub-set of Environmentally Sensitive Integration, discussed Šbelow. …é5. ECONOMIC AND OTHER CRITERIAé é5.1 The Elevation of Economicsé A Land Use Plan is an excellent opportunity to set the direction Šfor future prosperity, or the lack of it. Land remains with us Šindefinitely, so how we plan its use now will affect what happens 50 or Š100 years hence. The challenge is to lay the foundation for future Šprosperity, rather than future impoverishment. However, aiming primarily at economic objectives - such as Šeconomic regeneration - will not lay such a foundation. This is Šbecause the economic prosperity of a community is not ensured or Šcreated by following the rules of accountancy. While the laws of Šeconomics must not be ignored, they cannot by themselves assure us of Štrue prosperity. Prosperity comes from the intermixing of many aspects of the Šcommunity's functioning, including such apparently nebulous things as Šthe attitudes of its members, a sense of vision, a sense of Šresponsibility, a sense of self-giving rather than self-getting. What we are talking about is not prosperity over the next two Šyears, but in the longer term. We are not talking about the number of Špounds at the bottom of the District's balance sheet but about Šsomething more sustainable and meaningful, a general well-being in the Šcommunity and each member of it, a sense of 'shalom' and wholesomeness, Ša feeling of belonging to the District, a goodwill among its members. ŠThese are the things that lead to a sound balance sheet, and do so Šsustainably. It has links with quality of life, but the latter term has become Šso abused in recent years that is needs interpretation. It is no coincidence that the firms that have stood the test of Štime - Cadbury's, Boot's, Lever Bros, Guinness, etc. - were firms that Šstarted out, not primarily to make money, but with a mission for Šjustice. Cadbury's and Guinness started out with the aim of providing Šan alternative drink that could reduce the curse of drunkenness. ŠJosiah Boot started out to provide access to medicines for the poor. ŠLevers started out to provide the poor with the opportunity to keep Šclean and avoid disease. The lesson is that Alyn and Deesside District should have justice Šas its primary aim, not the fickle notion of economic regeneration. By Š'justice' we do not mean law-keeping (the Conservative view), nor Šequality (the Socialist view), but giving what is due to all in the Šcreated order of things. This varies from one historical era to Šanother, as the presenting problems evolve, and in the nineteenth Šcentury it meant attending to the poor. But today the presenting Šproblems are different. We are damaging the planet on which we live. ŠWe live in a global village. We seek high quality and convenience for Šourselves yet there are places in the world where people do not even Šhave the basics. Our own communities have become dehumanised. We have Šlost much of our sense of responsibility. And our non-human neighbours Šare exposed to considerable injustice. So justice, today, justice that Šshould lie at the heart of the Alyn and Deesside Plan, will focus on Šrighting these wrongs. That will set the course for robust, Šsustainable and true prosperity. So, we should strenuously avoid elevating economics above other Šaspects of reality. We should hold all aspects in balance. While we Šmust of course not ignore the rules of sound economics, as was perhaps Šdone in the 1960s and 1970s, economic regeneration should not be made Šthe main goal. Economic regeneration will flow only from such a broad Šview of justice as outlined above. é5.2 Profits, not Incomeé However, even within the realm of fiscal economics, we notice in Šplaces a rather fundamental naivety. From our reviwing of many Land- ŠUse Plans it seems that many Local Authorities - not just Alyn and ŠDeesside - fall foul of a very basic rule of finance. The objective that underlies many policies, especially those to Šdo with industry, seems to be to maximize income. Attract industry and Šcommerce here, so the argument seems to go, and the District will then Šhave the benefit of more income in terms of taxes and job provision. ŠAnd that is a Good Thing. Similarly, we must do all we can to avoid Šputting obstacles in the way of firms who might locate here, because Šthey would go elsewhere and we would lose income. But there are also costs. Not just direct costs, but indirect. ŠWhat is important is not income but profit. One of the main apparent Šattractions of inward investment is that it 'provides jobs', and some Šof the problems with seeing jobs as a commodity to be provided have Šbeen discussed above. The Plan should not give an uncritical or general welcome to Šinward investment. Inward investment is income, not profit, and often Šbrings unforeseen problems later on. é5.3 Tourism and Attracting Visitorsé Nowhere is this mistaking of income for profits more pronounced Šthan in the case of tourism. Tourism is seen as source of free income, Šwhich has merely to be tapped into to gain all measure of benefits. ŠNot so; it is a chimera. While there is some benefit to be gained from encouraging tourism Šin a place that receives few visitors, tourism is not the magic answer. ŠAs many places have found, tourism brings many problems. It generates Šand increases traffic. It destroys the local community. Local people Šfeel alienated as they see facilities forever provided for tourists at Šthe expense - so they think - of facilities for themselves. Much land Šis given over to commercial tourist ventures. And the whole atmosphere Šof the place changes to one of superficiality. In particular, no welcome should be given to large tourist- Šoriented developments. These are dangerous, in generating income but Šnot much profit, for the local community; see above. If tourism is to Šbe enhanced in Alyn and Deesside, it should be by means of small Šdevelopments at the ground level, by which visitors gain the benefit of Šthose things that are unique to Alyn and Deesside. †6. THE NATURAL WORLD é6.1 Wildlife also Uses Landé For too long it has been wrongly assumed that 'land use' means Šuse by human beings. Frequently, land is called 'derelict' and Š'unused' when in fact it is being very useful to non-human species: Šwildlife. However, the attribution sticks and the media, business and ŠLocal Authorities alike clamour for the land to be developed. Only so, Šit is thought, can that land be brought into 'productive use'. The result is that many valuable wildlife habitats or corridors Šare destroyed. When this happens, the affected species die off in that Šarea. Do they not move elsewhere? The answer would seem to be no, if Šrecent studies on estuary habitats can be generalised. They have Šnowhere else to go. As our wildlife diminishes, its populations become Šless sustainable, and its variety less rich. Local walks, that used to Šbe full of bird movement and bird song, and promised the occasional Šglimpse of shy mammals, become boring. A rich wildlife gives interest, Špeace and a sense of well-being. And such leisure and entertainment as Šwildlife offers is free; even the poorest can enjoy it. The Plan must resist any assumption that 'land-use' means human Šbeings. It must resist the temptation to see any 'unused' land as Šneeding 'development', and judge each piece of land on its own merits. ŠIf the land is genuinely derelict, such as an industrial spoil yard, Šthen little wildlife will inhabit it; it is 'unused' indeed. But it Šmay be that the so-called derelict land is important as a wildlife Šhabitat or corridor. Note that wildlife is not so affected by the Švisual appearance of land as we seem to be, and what appears an eye- Šsore to us is often exactly how non-human species like it. Wildlife must not be treated as expendable; even if it may seem Što serve no human utility, we have a responsibility to its Maker. é6.2 Bio-diversityé The key to a healthy wildlife regime is Bio-diversity: the Šmaintenance of a rich, varied and balanced collection of fauna and Šflora within the District. Bio-diversity is useful as a goal concept Šbecause it leads to other desirable characteristics. Or, at least, it Šbecomes easier to achieve other goals in an area of high Bio-diversity. ŠIn particular this is true of the Strategy and Overall Aim. We suggest that Bio-diversity should be the single introductory Šconcept of the Conservation section, in place of Heritage and ŠCountryside. It is the foundation on which our environment is based. (Note that we strongly object to Built Environment and Natural ŠEnvironment being lumped together into a single section.) As discussed below, as far as possible Bio-diversity should be Šaimed at in all parts of the District, not just in SSSIs etc. Even in Šthe built-up areas Bio-diversity is important. It enriches the Šresidents' gardens. It gives a 'soul' to these areas, and many Šresidents (and visitors) find the joy of meeting seldom-seen species as Šthey walk around. Of course, it takes on a different form in built-up areas. Even Šthough the number of species may be smaller than in the countryside, it Šis still possible to obtain a degree of richness and interest. Š'Derelict' land that has become naturalised in the middle of a built-up Šarea could be important, and care should be taken that the interests of Šnon-human species are taken into account when development is Šconsidered. We suggest that the Plan identify a network of Green Ways, as has Šbeen done in the recent Warrington Borough Plan, and in City of Davis, ŠCalifornia. See appendix. One problem is that in most parcels of land (outside SSSIs etc.) Šthere is little information about its level of Bio-diversity. What is Šreally needed is a District-wide survey of its land, including mapping Šall wildlife corridors and bio-centres, so that proper decisions may be Šmade. However, we are realistic enough to know that this is unlikely Što happen in the near future, and certainly not before the Plan has to Šgo on deposit. Therefore we suggest that a survey should be taken of Šall land to be developed for which there is any reason to believe that Šit may have some wildlife value. The survey should include not only Šbirds and plants, but also mammals, insects, reptiles, amphibians, Šbats, arachnids and so on. It is particularly important that the Šsurvey be undertaken for every piece of derelict land before it is Šallowed to be developed. The only exception to the Bio-diversity principle is when there Šis a special, uncommon habitat which needs to be protected from Šencroachment by species that might damage it. However such sites are Šrare, and a special policy could be formulated for them. é6.3 Maintaining Bio-diversityé How are we to maintain high levels of Bio-diversity? Indeed, how Šare we to raise the levels in the first place? What form should land- Šuse policies take? The important concepts are the bio-centre and the wildlife Šcorridor. Bio-centres act as sources of wildlife, from which they can Šdisperse to other land. (This information comes via the Mersey Forest Šand University of Salford, based on European expertise) They are of Šdifferent sizes, local and regional. Regional bio-centres are large Šareas such as Delamere Forest, and it is unlikely that Alyn and ŠDeesside has any. Local bio-centres are smaller, but must be viable - Šnot much less than 1 sq km in extent and preferably larger. In any Šgiven area there should be several local bio-centres of differing Štypes, in order that variety may be maintained. The type will depend Šon the soil, the lie of the land, the weather, and other factors. In Šthe towns, derelict land is often an important, albeit small, bio- Šcentre. Wildlife corridors are pieces of habitat that connect bio-centres Što each other and connect other land to bio-centres. They allow Šwildlife to move around. Not only animals but, more slowly, plants Štoo. Streams often make valuable corridors when they are lined with Štrees and bushes. Large open spaces do not. So the Green Ways we Šsuggest for Alyn and Deesside will only act as a wildlife corridor Šwhere they are not open fields or neat gardens. In the built-up areas, Šgardens, the backs of premises and derelict land can all be valuable as Šwildlife corridors. It is important that both bio-centres and corridors be considered Šin the Plan. Every care should be taken, especially in the towns, not Što break any corridors or damage the effectiveness of any bio-centres. ŠWe already have too few. But it is unlikely that where they are is not Šknown. A survey must be carried out (perhaps enlisting help from the Švolunteer sector such as local natural history societies). Further, it is important that the countryside extends into the Šbuilt-up areas of Alyn and Deesside. Then wildlife can more easily Špenetrate. It is important not to 'tidy up the edges' of towns by Šfilling in, unless there is some overriding reason for doing so. é6.4 Environmentally Sensitive Integrationé While it is important to protect bio-centres - and many are Šdesignated SSSIs, sites of County Value, etc. - we should treat the Šrest of the land as environmentally sensitive too. Some years ago, the World Conservation Strategy pointed out that Šwe "need to dispel any notion that conservation is a limited, Šindependent sector." Conservation, Bio-diversity, ecology - all more- Šor-less equivalent for the purposes of the Plan - is like economics and Šshould permeate all sections of the Plan. We need also to dispel any Šnotion that concern for wildlife is a middle-class leisure interest, Šand by implication less important than housing, roads, jobs. In fact, Šmany people outside the middle classes take great interest in wildlife; Šmore people go bird watching than go to football matches. It is Šprobably one the most classless interests we have in this country. ŠThis is partly because it is free, and partly because it touches a Šspiritual chord that lies in all human beings. On Bio-diversity rests Šultimately our own health and sustainability, to say nothing of our Šprosperity. While protection of special areas is necessary at present, it is Šnot viable as the whole of our wildlife policy. There are several Šdangers. One is that non-designated areas are considered fair game for Šdevelopers or intensive agriculture, even though they may be Šecologically valuable. Another is that residents of protected areas Šmay feel unfairly done by. A third is that protection can very easily Šbe lifted by future administrations. A sounder approach is to treat the whole countryside as Šenvironmentally sensitive (including those parts inside the towns). ŠAfter all, wildlife, nature, the biological world as a whole éisé Šsensitive and can too easily be damaged without us realising it. To Šretain a stable biosphere, we have to learn to live in harmony with it Šas the rule, and not as the exception - in all areas, not just those Šspecially designated. An example of this can be found in Scotland: landscape and Šbiological assessment of all Scotland, by Scottish Natural Heritage. But this does not mean a tight clamp on all development. On the Šcontrary, given the need for Sustainable Communities, the Plan should Šseek to integrate a reasonably wide variety of local activity into this Šoverall biological context. The integration should be environmentally Šsensitive. We advocate a greater flexibility in planning, especially Šin the Green Belt. But it is important that this flexibility is Šafforded to small, locally-controlled enterprises, meeting local needs, Šand not to large ones or ones whose main purpose is commercial. 7. GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY There are two types of Environmental Implications, those Šconcerned with immediate environment and quality of life issues, and Šthose concerned with wider environmental issues such as contribution to ŠGlobal Warming, etc. The latter will most likely be indirect and the Šformer, more direct. The Plan should recognise the difference, and Štreat them separately. If they are conflated, the direct implications Šwill usually overshadow the indirect ones, though the latter are often Šof greater importance. Even though Alyn and Deesside's contribution to global problems Šis only a tiny fraction of the total, it still has a responsibility to Šminimize its adverse effects. The fact that it has a Alyn and ŠDeesside-sized effect means that it has a Alyn and Deesside-sized Šresponsibility, not zero responsibility. It can only escape such Šresponsibility if there is another District of similar size which is Šwilling to take on a double responsibility - and no such District Šexists. Global responsibility impinges on three main areas: transport, Šenergy and building materials. Road transport is the single largest Šcontributor to global warming, and is growing. As argued above, we Šmust reverse the trend to ever increasing road use. Energy can be Šsaved by astute design of buildings, by combined heat and power Šschemes, and by encouraging the building of energy efficient units, Šsuch as terraced houses. Building materials often come from rain Šforests, and should not do so. Alyn and Deesside should set an example of global responsibility. ŠEveryone knows, deep down, that it is right. Alyn and Deesside's Šreputation would benefit enormously and, with it, its prosperity. 8. OTHER MATTERS é8.1 Give Incentivesé It is a fact of life that one's surroundings either give one an Šincentive toward taking responsibility or reduce such incentive. We Šbelieve that, after decades of a growing dependency culture - which has Šshifted but not lessened during the Thatcher years - there is a great Šneed to enhance the incentives for people to take responsibility. ŠNowadays it is among businesses and car drivers in which a form of Šdependency culture is growing. In this context, this means that those involved in developments Šthat cause various kinds of problem should not be shielded from those Šproblems, but made very aware of them. The most effective way of doing Šthis is to ensure that the problems they cause will immediately be felt Šby themselves. For instance, congestion and inconvenience can be Šuseful disincentives to car use, as discussed above. But, for static plant, this might not always be feasible. The Šmost effective way then is to ensure that their problems are felt by Šneighbours. Then, by virtue of the resultant pressure from their Šneighbours, they will be given very direct incentive to take steps to Šameliorate the problems. Some industrial developments could easily Šcurb their noise, pollution, etc. if they had incentive to do so. So Šdo not hide them away in industrial estates, but place them among Šneighbours who will shout at them! Of course, such a policy needs to be applied with sensitivity. ŠThere are developments that genuinely cannot reduce the bad effect on Šneighbours, so they should be separated or shielded, but there are many Šwhich can clean up their act. We commend the idea to you.