http://southeast.greenparty.org.uk/news.html#SEPlan says:

A lack of urgency with regard to climate change. We need to achieve cuts in greenhouse gas emissions of over 85% by 2050 to avert major changes in global climatic conditions. We note that the SE is likely to be exposed to the most serious effects of climate change in the UK. Since the draft plan also notes this, we are concerned by the lack of adequate measures to address this problem especially with regard to surface transportation, aviation expansion and building standards. We note that the Institute for Public Policy Research calculates road traffic will be up 25% by 2015 in the SE, water use up 15% and air pollution by 7.5%.

They go on to list further reasons for opposing the South East Plan mainly criticising infrastructure and resources along with energy conservation. It looks like they don’t trust all the promises that are being made with regards to the South East Plan.

There is no doubt that many of the climate change scenarios are extremely challenging to our flood defence role. Southern Region is dominated by its coastline. Climate change will make it extremely difficult to maintain standards of defence against both flooding and erosion.

-Gary Lane, Regional Water Manager, Environment Agency, Southern Region.

The South East avoided the famous Easter Floods in 1998 but this is no reason for complacency. Climate change will mean more winter rainfall, wetter soils in winter and a greater risk of extreme flooding.

(no source)

Doing nothing is not an option. You may doubt some of the predictions and their likely impacts, but I suggest that a sensible analysis of the risks does not allow us to sit back and wait.

Peter Ewins, Chief Executive, The Met. Office. From a lecture given to The Royal Academy of Engineering, January 1999.

I wonder how much worse it would be if a large percentage of land were concreted over in the South East Plan?

Jez.

“The South East Plan should send a message to Government that the South East, as a region, is genuinely committed to sustainable growth. Otherwise we provide them with an excuse for not investing in our people and infrastructure. This investment is essential to provide an environment in which businesses in the South East can remain globally competitive and people can continue to enjoy a high quality of life.”

Quoted from http://www.brightonbusiness.co.uk/htm/ni20050308.756436.htm

I don’t think that sustainable growth is an issue - undoubtedly, everyone wants the best for their area, schools, hostpitals, transport etc… But, do people want it at the expense of sacrificing the local countryside of the place they have chosen to live in? Is something as ill thought out as fastway bus routes going to appease the population of the south east? I don’t think it will.

Wouldn’t growth be better suited to somewhere with less industry and jobs? Somewhere that could really use such an investment?

Q8. There are a number of options under consideration for the total number of homes that should be built in the South East each year. Which one of the following options would you be most likely to support?

The rate we have been actually building over the past five years - about 25,500 each year giving the South East 510,000 over 20 years 21%

Aiming to increase this by a small amount - to about 28,000 each year giving the South East 560,000 over 20 years 21%

Aiming to increase this by a larger amount – to about 32,000 each year giving the South East 640,000 over 20 years 8%

Aim to increase this further 3%

Or build at a lower rate than we have been over the past five years 42%

Don’t know 6%

Read the full questionnaire results http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2005/SEC%20-%20Mar%2005/SEC-plan-march05.asp

London’s problems of living and travelling are addressed by ever-higher rates of investment and by transferring most of the problems beyond its boundaries. The larger towns of the South East survive by the rebuilding of those whose character is already lost, and by rigorous restraint by those which retain their self-respect. The latter export their problems and costs but the countryside and its villages cannot deflect the problems of others as their local plans provide no protection. The external pressures which degrade and destroy the fragile fabric of community are beyond control.

By Sir Alan Muir Wood, FRS, FREng

Excerpt from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1563662,00.html

Questionnaire results

People attending the local consultation meetings were also asked to complete a short survey with questions selected to reflect those being asked by the South East Counties in their ICM telephone poll and by SEERA in the ‘Your Shout’ leaflet. Key results are that:

• 91% believe it is ‘very important’ that new development should only be allowed when it is certain that the additional infrastructure and services needed to support it will be provided. A further 7% believe this to be ‘quite important’.

• 85% think that transport improvements, particularly to major road and rail services, are ‘very important’ to the county’s future economic prosperity and growth. A further 9% think such improvements are ‘quite important’.

• Nearly two-thirds (64%) consider that the quality of the local environment should be protected at all costs, even if this means that some needs for housing and jobs will not be met. Just over one quarter (27%) would give greater priority to meeting local needs for homes and jobs even if this means some environmental loss in some areas.

• Only around 10% believe there is a lot of scope for further development on either previously developed land or greenfield sites in the county. About half believe there to be hardly any scope at all.

• 51% support an overall level of future housing provision across the South East that is lower than SEERA’s lowest option of 25,500 homes per year, while another 19% would support that level of development (i.e. the annual average actually achieved over the last five years) continuing. Just 4% are in favour of making provision for 32,000 new homes per year, SEERA’s highest consultation option.

• 70% would support a 10-20% reduction in future housing provision along the whole of the Sussex Coast (from Chichester to Rye) from the existing average development rate of around 3,000 homes per year.

• Just under half (46%) would also support a 25% reduction in housing development in the rest of East Sussex from the current average development rate of around 400 homes per year.

Don’t forget, today is the last day that you can voice your concerns over The South East Plan. I just hope enough people have voiced their opinions to stop this monstously stupid and damaging plan.

Just to remind you here’s the address to send your opinions to:

Secretariat,
South East England Regional Assembly,
Berkeley House,
Cross Lanes,
Guildford
GU1 1UN

Its good to see that Mole Valley District Council have come out against the South East Plan. You can read the article ‘Mole Valley Council Slams South East Plan‘ on their website at the address below

http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=1798

Where are Reigate and Banstead Council when we need them?

“Development on or close to flood plains will be vulnerable to flooding, and may increase the risk of flooding elsewhere”. Couple that Environment Agency quote (see Spring 2005 East Surrey Westminster Report) with the same Agency’s flood prediction maps for the north of Horley and what do you get?

Your views and the South East Plan questionnaire.

Please read about the South East Plan which is being prepared by the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA). The plan is to build thousands of houses throughout the South East and will come as a shock to many people who lives will be irreparably changed by it.

Attached to the plan is a questionnaire asking for your feedback. Please be very careful before answering the questionnaire and consider how, whatever your intention, your answers might be used to support the governments position that thousands of houses need to be built. Below are some ideas on how your answers could be interpreted.

Question 1: how would you rate your quality of life?
Answer options range from very good to very poor + don’t know

Its always nice when someone asks how you are but what has this got to do with building houses? If you answer ‘very poor’ then you open the door to the assertion that more houses are needed to improve your quality of life. If you answer ‘very good’ then the assertion could be more houses are needed to maintain your high quality of life. This question has no useful purpose in understanding what you want for development in the South East.

Question 2: consists of a list of topics and asks how important you think they are to your community.
Answer options range from very important to not at all important + don’t know.

To any sane person all these things are important. Everyone wants reduced traffic congestion, increased health service provision and more affordable housing, so why ask these questions? One reason might be that saying any of these are important allows SEERA the position that the proposed development is necessary to deliver the improvements that people have identified are important to them.

Question 3: what should we aim for over the next 20 years.
Answer options are -
1) Give more emphasis to economic growth.
2) Give less emphasis to economic growth.
3) Continue to give the same emphasis to economic growth.
4) Don’t know.

To the answer 1) invites the argument that new houses are needed to sustain growth. To answer 2) leads to the answer improved houses are required for the needs of a growing population that lives longer.

Question 4: which of the three options would you be most likely to support -
1) build 25,500 houses per year
2) build 28,000 houses per year
3) build 32,000 houses per year
4) don’t know

If you tick the box for the least number of houses you are still supporting 25,500 houses per year each year for 20 years. That’s 510,000 houses. Is that really what you want?
You have not been given the option here to express any views against development. If you oppose the plan you should avoid this question if necessary say ‘don’t know’.

Question 5: which of the following options do you prefer?
1) significantly increasing housing density and minimizing use of greenfield land
2) use more greenfield land and moderately increase density in existing cities, towns and villages
3) use a significant amount of greenfield land and slightly increase density
4) don’t know

In the Gatwick area the plan is for up to 38,000 houses. Don’t be fooled even option 1) means a lot of construction on green fields. Note the lack of any opportunity to state a case against development.

Question 6: in your opinion where should we build new homes?
Answer options are -
1) in existing built up areas
2) in new suburbs
3) in existing villages
4) in new towns and villages

This is the same as question 5) but it will facilitate SEERA to state the percentage of respondents who support development in each of the different areas. For example if 50% of respondents reply option 2) then you could soon see the publication of the statistic “50% of the population support the development of new suburbs in the South East”. Again there is no option to state a preference against development.

An alternative to answering this questionnaire is to ignore it and instead write to SEERA direct. The address is -

Secretariat,
South East England Regional Assembly,
Berkeley House,
Cross Lanes,
Guildford
GU1 1UN

Please do express your views.