Opinions
Last week, years of ideas, debates, and lobbying were supposed to come together in three interconnected pieces of proposed legislation - planning, energy and waste. This was to be the week Britain acted, rather than talked; when government committed itself to an environmental revolution, with climate change at its centre. But by the end of the week, it was being accused of flunking the issues, getting it hopelessly wrong, and yet again not being ambitious enough. "You wait for years for an environment white paper to come along, and then three come at once," said one commentator.
Planning came first and was the least well received. Big industry (the supermarkets, the windfarm operators, the power men, the road and house builders), backed by a few favourite economists, purred as Ruth Kelly, the communities secretary, announced proposals for "a planning system fit for the 21st century". But almost everyone else was horrified.
The consensus of opposition parties, green groups and many local authorities was that this Treasury drive to "modernise" and "speed up" the planning system was really a device to bypass proper public debate, and traded environment protection against competitiveness. In their eyes, business had been favoured over communities , the big over the small, and the central over the local.
The paper, moreover, failed the first test of greenness, with many organisations saying that the new planning regime would increase, not reduce, greenhouse emissions.
Ten days on, all that can be heard are the questions that the planning paper has raised. Transport 2000 wanted to know: "What is the nature of this commission which is to adjudicate on major projects? How will national need be defined? Who will decide? How will the commission operate? Will local people be able to give evidence? Will they be able to hire experts? How will government ensure there is proper discussion of need with the people most affected? Will the "need" for major schemes such as roads and runways be already decided before they come to the commission."
The more that they and other analysts looked at the detail of the white paper, the less thought-out it seemed, and the more paper-thin were the societal safeguards. "Our real fear is that people will be excluded from decisions, which may result in more direct action, judicial reviews and human rights challenges, which will delay schemes, leading to greater frustration, people feeling more excluded," says Stephen Joseph, Transport 2000's director and veteran observer of government and grassroots' interactions.
But it isn't just the environment groups that are worried. Removal of the test requiring supermarkets to justify a new out-of-town store by demonstrating a requirement for additional retail floor space threatens chaos, say regeneration analysts. "The emphasis on economic efficiency is likely to lead to a loss of diversity in retailing and increased monopolistic competition," says Jonathan Baldock, head of planning at Donaldson's, an organisation that advises more than 100 local authorities and acts on behalf of developers. "It is also likely to reduce the value of the very substantial, existing investments in town centres, undermining institutional investors such as pension funds and risking economic growth. The result could undermine the vitality and viability of town centres."
The Campaign to Protect Rural England, one of the government's most vociferous critics before the white paper was published, was relatively subdued. Its head of planning, Marina Pacheco, said: "Unless correctly conceived this will make it easier to get planning permission for superstores."
Two days later, it was the turn of the Department for Trade and Industry secretary, Alistair Darling, to enrage the grassroots with his energy white paper. This time, government made it abundantly clear that Britain could not survive without nuclear. Only two years after it was declared by government as unnecessary, nuclear power was now, in Tony Blair's words, "inevitable".
Industry loved this, and the CBI, and major power generators such as E.ON and Edf, said this was an "important milestone". But the white paper also sowed confusion. The British wind energy association asked about the renewables that the government, only a few years ago, said could easily pull us through. A spokesman said: "Government appears not to believe in renewables sufficiently to turn its 'aspiration' to gain 20% of our power from renewables by 2020 into a firm target. This is especially disappointing in light of the decision by EU leaders in March to set a target of 20% of all energy from renewables by 2020."
Greenpeace, the New Economics Foundation, the Green party, Friends of the Earth and others were furious: the government's endorsement of nuclear power failed on economic, energy and environmental grounds, they said. Gordon Brown wanted to continue shovelling taxpayers' cash into the ailing nuclear industry, at the cost of damaging the fledgling renewables market, it was said. Today's proposals would cripple the green energy market.
Others pointed to inconsistencies. Why was there so little emphasis on what individuals could do in their own homes apart from installing "smart" electricity meters? Why was there no major endorsement, or money, for marine power? Why are housing associations required to build homes to higher energy efficiency standards, but not private private developers?
Thursday saw environment secretary David Miliband wheeled out for the waste strategy and promptly binned by the tabloids. Nevertheless, most recognise that the proposals would genuinely change the way we see waste.
Councils wanted, and got, the chance to reward those who recycle more. But why, asked Friends of the Earth, the low 50% by 2020 recycling target, when other countries can already manage 60-70% easily? The answer came in part from the Local Government Association: "Councils are already under huge financial pressure because of the escalating cost of landfill tax and EU laws. The landfill tax paid by local authorities has just increased by a third and could cost councils £3bn over the next four years. In 2010, councils and taxpayers, will face fines of up to £150 for every tonne of rubbish that is sent to landfill above a set limit."
This week, industry, household, councils, environment and development groups were all trying to work out what the proposals mean. All that is clear for now is that the balance has shifted from development at any cost, and that the environment is now stage centre.
| < prev | next > |