| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| orangepippin |
Eco-townsIt sounds like eco-towns are going ahead, about 15 of them each with 15,000 new houses. The idea is they will be "carbon neutral" ... but is there anything environmentally friendly about 15,000 new houses? |
||||||||
| vegplot |
I'm against the idea not because they're eco-homes but because I suspect planners and government are using the eco argument to justify these towns.
Eco shouldn't be a separate entity instead it should be a mindset change. All homes should be eco and I 'd rather see the money spent on upgrading existing homes or providing the incentives to do so. It's also potentially divisive and alienating. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
The problem is that the government has an overriding objective to build more and more houses. All other principles are subordinate to this objective. I think you are right that "eco" is being used to justify something that in a more normal planning context would not meet standard government planning guidance for sustainable development. | ||||||||
| vegplot |
Which is just about everything built in the UK at the moment, with a few noble exceptions. I seriously doubt the need for housing on the levels the government say it is i.e. 2 million new homes but I have no data to confirm or say otherwise. We have the opportunity to do some much with regard to living sustainably and yet we're still building the same energy inefficient houses we've always built. Things are improving but not quickly enough. |
||||||||
| toggle |
i think part of that is that they are looking at the need in certain areas where there is housing shortages, not necessarily looking at why everyone is migrating to those areas. | ||||||||
| boisdevie1 |
I do not believe for one minute that these homes will be carbon neutral. So all the homes will create their own power? I doubt it. Will their construction involve the creation of CO2 - I can't see all those concrete blocks being delivered by carbon neutral lorries can you?
Perhaps I'm being overly sceptical? No I'm not. |
||||||||
| ros |
I don't understand how any town can be eco if it's miles from where those living in it will be working | ||||||||
| vegplot |
Agree with both points above. If it's done badly people will sneer at eco and nothing will change. | ||||||||
| vegplot |
It still doesn't sink in with planners that we need more a village way of thinking. Living close to work, growing your own food or growing it locally etc. etc. These places are large settlements which have little interaction to the surrounding land or their energy/food inputs. Rather than 15 large eco towns I'd prefer to see 1,500 eco villages or more even better no additional building at all. |
||||||||
| cab |
Precisely. Eco commuter towns, its a farcical idea! |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
I wonder how the carbon-neutral bit will work? That means something in these towns must be capable of off-setting the entire carbon impact of 15,000 families. I don't know the best way to do that, but for example, how many trees would need to be planted to offset the carbon generated by one family - assuming the house and town have eco-friendly features they are still going to create some carbon, perhaps they will work outside the town so have to commute?
At the end of the day if these towns are to be carbon-neutral that must mean the same net carbon is produced as if there was nothing there at all? Who will take the rap if they are not carbon-neutral - the government, or the developer, or the towns themselves? I can't help thinking that this is case of "prevention is better than cure". |
||||||||
| thos |
I don't want to live close to work. I would like to work close to home, but teleworking has never caught on. Nearly all my work is done solo on the computer, but we need to be available for meetings at any time and conferencing is not an option. And it's not just the boss, I wouldn't trust myself to put the hours in if I worked from home. |
||||||||
| vegplot |
At least you're honest 
I did mean it the way you've said it. Working closer to home. |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
Working from home might be mandatory in an eco-town - unless you can offset the carbon impact of travelling? Otherwise the eco-town will not be carbon neutral, which is the concept on which the whole thing hangs. | ||||||||
| vegplot |
Not unless you mandate the use of electric or hydrogen fueled internal transport system using surplus electricty from the ring of turbine surrounding the town. |
||||||||
| Behemoth |
The one for Leeds is whith in the Leeds area. there is a shortage of good family homes in the area and people are communitng into Leeds from further afield than before. So it could help here as part of Leeds, not as a dormitory village. | ||||||||
| orangepippin |
Yes, given that the government simply wants to build a lot of houses, it would seem more "eco" to build them as an extension of an existing city rather than in the middle of nowhere. But it needs to be a pretty big city (like Leeds) that can absorb 15K new houses.
The point about housing shortages is a good one ... but the UK's population is largely (I agree not entirely) under government control through the levers of immigration, emigration, subsidies for children and so on. So if there is a housing shortage, it is largely of the government's own making. It comes down to commitment - or lack of it - to the concept of sustainable development. |
||||||||
| thos |
Unless a government takes action like the Chinese it has only marginal effect. The French government has been trying to increase their population for many years with little result except for increased numbers of unemployed immigrants in the large cities, which was not quite the desired result. |
||||||||
| Behemoth |
I stand corrected - apparently the 'Leeds City Region' includes Selby.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7328964.stm |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
The current round of Eastern European immigration - which has had a substantial impact on UK population - is surely the direct result of UK government policy? One might argue that the high levels of emigration are just the result of the miserable UK weather, although dis-satistfaction with the UK economy and perceived over-crowding may also be factors. So I think population levels are pretty much under direct government control, and housing requirements are to a large degree affected by population. |
||||||||
| Behemoth |
To the extent that we've signed up to a policy of freedom of movement between EU countries. I'm not sure the Governemnt did anything to ecourage people other than have a succesful economy in need of labour. | ||||||||
| Northern_Lad |
Almost, but can we change the end to "other than have a succesful economy in need of labour that will get off it's arse and stop being prissy about what jobs they're seen to do"? |
||||||||
| dpack |
greenwood wattle straw mud
compost , coppice and peasants nah boxhouses full of plastic and concrete and rockwool tescopolis , power grids and commuters greenwashing again |
||||||||
| Behemoth |
Is that a quote from your boss? |
||||||||
| orangepippin |
I understand the UK government has a specific policy to encourage immigration ... other EU governments (with similar economic requirements) do not. The pros and cons of whether this policy has helped the UK economy were in the news earlier this week - but the policy was clearly there. It is one of the reasons the UK government now needs to build so many houses. For me the issue is whether all this building is sustainable - it probably isn't, hence the need to dress it up as an "eco towns" policy. |
||||||||
| James |
I’ve been consulted on three locations within Yorkshire, only one of which is within an existing urban area (and this was a pre-existing proposed development that’s piggy backed onto the eco-town plan). Of the others, one is on an old coal mine, and one is on green-field land (just how ecological is that?)
The later two would definitely require people to travel by car to work. The first would require much more transport infrastructure within an over-stretched urban area. |
||||||||
| Behemoth |
I think you mean the 'Leeds City Area'. 
|
||||||||
| orangepippin |
Not all of Yorkshire is in the Leeds city region. I found out yesterday that I will now come under the Hull city region (I think). That is inspite of the fact that I live 10 miles out of York, and, frankly, what York city council get up to with their park and rides, ring road chaos, good stuff and bad stuff, is of far more interest to me than what Hull city council do 40 miles away. Unfortunately the the planners seem to see these amazing boundaries in places which do not reflect natural communities at all.
James comments are spot on, nice for me to be able to agree with him for once
|
||||||||
| Behemoth |
You'll now find you're at risk of flooding and wont be able to get insurance. | ||||||||
| orangepippin |
I take your point, but you are slightly behind the times - there is a town meeting tomorrow night to discuss the outcome of last summer's flooding, which devastated the town centre and wiped out many businesses.
A proper report has been done, and there are lots of interesting theories. It is perhaps no coincidence that this area has the fastest growing population of anywhere in the UK outside of London, and whilst the local authority seems happy to grant planning permission for new houses there has seemingly been little investment in drains. |
||||||||
| Behemoth |
Or possibly there has, all new development channels surface water to water courses, delaying its arrival there with detention tanks and soakaways isn't high on the agenda as far as i know, James may be able to provide more info. Increased run off to surface water drainage and the foul system is big problem and getting bigger. Water companies can object to new development but can't block it. If they development goes ahead they are obligated to take the foul drainage, not the surface water which wizzes off to the nearest ditch or culvert. | ||||||||
| orangepippin |
The government just wants to build houses, and that takes precedence over absolutely everything else - including its own sustainable development guidelines and LDF guidelines. | ||||||||
| James |
|
||||||||
| James |
thats so true too, OP. They're using the term 'eco' as a smoke screen for wedging in tens of thousands of new houses across the UK. something very odd happening here.....too many agreements.... |
||||||||
| sean |
Oh help, it's the end of the world as we know it. |
||||||||
| James |
Depending were you are, its highly likely that all new development is going to SUDS (sustainable urban drainage systems). which is a posh word for a soakaway. I'm not an engineer, so there's probably lots more to than that, but you get the idea... The EA is encouraging SUDS because it recharges rainfall to groundwater, instead of having it run-off from roads & drive ways into drains and through into rivers. Its likely that SUDS will be used in the eco-towns. I am concerned however that we're building up a time-bomb for ourselves. runoff from roads and driveways is much, much less clean than rain that falls on open ground and soaks in naturally. So we're encouraging dirtier water (which would otherwise either go for treatment or be diluted in the rivers) to be discharged to groundwater. Not a problem in many areas, apart from when you overlie an inportant aquifer (like you do, OP) and have large Yorkshire water abstractions not far away (again, like you, OP). This is one of those things that may come to nothing, or in twenty years time we may be saying "why the hell did we do that?" |
||||||||
| Bebo |
As far as I'm aware any run-off from new development has to be attentuated in balancing ponds or swales before being discharged into watercourses or go through a SUDS. The EA are a statutory consultee on pretty much all planning applications of any size and if they are not happy that a proposal is dealing with its run-off properly they object. I'm not aware of any planning authority that has approved a scheme with an EA objection against it.
There is a small development proposed next door to our paddock. Approval for six houses was given with a planning condition that the EA had to agree the proposed drainage scheme. They didn't and the site has been sitting vacant for several years. I gather there is a new, smaller application (three houses) in now. |
||||||||
| Behemoth |
Are soak aways in low lying areas prone to flooding much help? (Said the non engineer, now how big do you want that dam?) | ||||||||
| Bebo |
Not a drainage expert, but I think you can only use soakaways in certain circumstances (needs to be the right soil type and not on an aquifer I think). You can use balancing ponds in most circumstances. These are just giant holding tanks (that are normally attractively landscaped and planted) that take the immediate run-off and then release it at a rate that the local watercourses can handle without flooding. | ||||||||
| James |
This is site specific. We try to encourage this, but not all sites/ Local authorities can be bothered with the extra effort. In terms of flooding risk, it makes not the slightest difference (see below why I make this point)
For flood risk, yes. But not for pollution. So very often drainage schemes happen that are appropriate to minimise flooding but do not have the pollution minimisation stategies that you mentioned above. And becuase we're not a stat. consulty for pollution, we cant say anything unless asked.
It happens quite often. The Environment Agency objected to a verylarge development (many thousands of houses) within the water meadows in Lincoln last year. It was over-rulled. As a result, there will be thousands of houses built within the flood plain. I believe (but I'm not fully up to speed with it...), the Insurance Industry have agreed that were the EA objects on flooding grounds and this is over-rulled, they are justified in refusing insurance. Effectively, their argument is that by over-rulling the EA, the local planning authority takes on the liability. In this context, the Insurers have a massive amount of power.
No, they flood even more. Bebo's point about ballancing ponds is about right. But consider a housing development of 20 houses. We may ask for SUDS with a ballancing pond. The balancing pond will take up the space of at least one house. That's 5% of the income gone. Or £250,000. Its a very expensive pond, which is why people dont like putting them in. |