Eco-towns

[Paul mabbott]

I've just seen this -
Eco-towns 'could destroy British wildlife' » Housing » 24dash.com - which sounds like a bit of a half-thought-out scheme but have otherwise heard nothing about it. Anyone have such proposals near them? Or know anything more?

[Meta menardi]

It is a grey area for me as well, but I have noticed that if someone gets planning permission for a whocking great dev refused, it does seem to turn into an eco-village. I have been told that I make cynics question what is going on.

[coasty]

I rather fear political posturing is at the route of this,,, Now if they got to grips with some of the horrendous brown field sites that would be a step forward...
Andy

[hobble]

The word Eco is used to "Greenwash" the public these days. It's right brown field sites should be used first. If everyone stuck to just one house each some of the problem of the lack of housing would be sorted out.
I believe in building ecologically, using a local workforce and for the sole benefit of local people, but not if it destroys any natural habitats.
Thankfully the Wildlife Trust are on the case.

[stripee]

mmm, our lovely ex prime minister maybe soon to be EU President!
From Guardian story about eco towns 'Secret' eco-town plans spark protest | Society | The Observer

"The Wildlife Trusts, a voluntary body, is dismayed at the lack of attention being given to ecology. Its chief executive, Stephanie Hilborne, said: 'The government's proposals make a mockery of the term '"eco-town". We need to see the planning system being used to avoid insensitive development and restore and create new wildlife habitats.'

Questions are being asked about the involvement of Tony Blair and his friend, Lord Leitch. The former Prime Minister is an environmental adviser to Zurich Financial Services, parent company of Eagle Star, the developer proposing a 12,500-home town in Hampshire. Eagle Star, which could make up to £1bn from the eco-town proposal at Micheldever Station, is also sponsoring the government's regional seminars on eco-towns.

Leitch, the former chairman of Zurich, is credited with having persuaded Blair to join his group as an adviser. Eagle Star has denied that either man will have any role over the eco-town proposal. However, campaigners want assurances from ministers that they have not been involved in lobbying for the scheme."

[ColonelBlimp]

Greenwash greenwash greenwash.

I don't know how carpeting over more virgin land when there are acres and acres of uninhabited wasteland in towns, and making more money for fat cat developers could be ecologically sound at all.

[Gill Catton]

firstly I will reiterate about how brownfield sites are often some of the most valuable habitats around, light years ahead of relatively sterile arable farmland they just don't look as pretty so the general public and even people who suggest that they care about wildlife fail to do any research into how valuable they are and just llet them get built on - even encourage it. development should be conducted on a site by site basis and how a site functions in support of wildlife is far more important than how it looks if you ask me.

secondly yes I have seen about these eco towns and if you are going to build a new town, these are definately the way to go. They will be sustainable housing, hopefully most with locally produced power from local plants that use rubbish in addition to other methods, there's greater recognition of the value of green space, green corridors and wild spaces in addition to the need for recreation. There will be large lakes and wetlands and it wouldn't suprise me one inch if the biodiversity ends up better in these areas than it was before as it has with developments such as centerparcs.

Development isn't necessarily a bad thing but the British public being so quick to knock anything - even if its beneficial - because they take the easy route and let the papers make thier mind up for them these landmark developments will probably struggle - meanwhile smaller ordinary tightly packed developments will keep turning up at the edge of cities and smaller towns because we need housing and these sort of developments don't get as much press.


Sigh.... This is not necesaily a bad thing folks

and sorry for getting a bit heated about this - but its this 'build on brownfield - whatever' attitude that meant that a site I surveyed in Kent with Water Voles and great-crested newts and breeding long-eared owls, breeding lapwing, shelduck, skylark, redshank, reed bunting, sand martin and a heronry, masses of wildflowers masses of insects dragonflies, digger wasps and bees, bumble bees, butterflies, breeding foxes and it got built on - token green areas that will be emptied by cats and small children over time - fish will be put in the ponds and the ditches it will be ruined because it was brownfield and therefore not considered valuable by the general public.........

[hobble]

Sorry Jill, I obviously have got my brown field sites mixed up with existing old empty buildings. There are so many empty buildings, some beautiful here, they should be renovated to make new homes.

[ColonelBlimp]

I still say that redeveloping redundant urban land (which there is piles of) is far superior for the environment than ploughing up virgin soil for acres and acres of new identikit homes. Itis also far superior for the people in the towns as there are more people visiting the services in the towns, and stopping areas (like in my area) which are uninhabited because everyone has moved out because not very many people lived there etc. etc. becoming havens for anti-social behaivour.