Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Environment Agency Supports Climate Change!
In fighting to protect Kent’s beautiful countryside from in-appropriate or un-sustainable development, and in so doing safeguard the wider environment, it is sometimes difficult to identify friends, foes, and ‘fence-sitters’. However, Lord Chris Smith, Chairman of the Environment Agency, has made this easy for us…and he obviously has no problems with climate change!
In a recent interview for BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Lord Smith gave his support to the expansion of shale gas exploitation across England and Wales, declaring it to be “very beneficial for our energy needs.” He appears to have conveniently overlooked the fact that shale gas is still a fossil fuel, and it’s use will continue to accelerate climate change. He also made scant reference to other environmental concerns, suggesting they could be easily managed.
While he later qualifies this support by admitting there is a need for carbon capture and storage to reduce the release of carbon dioxide to atmosphere, this technology is still a long way off from being put into production, and there is no sign of the necessary legislation that will make this compulsory. We doubt that energy companies will hang around for these obstacles to be resolved before joining the stampede to exploit these gas reserves.
We find it extremely worrying when the Chairman of one of the Government’s largest quangos is willing to give his support to fracking, and thereby continued contribution to climate change, and yet has said very little about the drought, which is being attributed by many as one of the symptoms of climate change. Gone are the days when the Environment Agency would speak up for the environment on behalf of “present and future generations”; it appears to have degenerated into another voice-box for Government policy and ambition.
Protect Kent believes there are still a lot of un-answered questions about shale gas exploitation, and perhaps some un-asked questions too. No-one appears to be ‘getting to grips’ with the many issues regarding this industry and answering the wider public’s concerns. The Government themselves are only dealing with the environmental risks in a piecemeal fashion. Perhaps the energy exploitation companies are fully aware of these risks and concerns, but are keeping quiet about them. Lord Smith has missed a prime opportunity to call for all issues to be made known, explored and resolved, and through this action to have public fears about shale gas exploitation dispelled.
- A number of important documents have yet to emerge. For example, a rigorous transport plan and a finalised air-quality assessment. The latter is critical given that allocations at Teynham will feed extra traffic into AQMAs.
- There seems to be no coherent plan for infrastructure delivery – a key component of the plan given the allocations being proposed near the already crowded Junction 7.
- There seems to have been little or no cooperation with neighbouring boroughs or even parish councils within Swale itself.
The removal of a second consultation might have been understandable if this final version of the plan were similar to that being talked about at the beginning of the consultation process. It is, however, radically different in the following ways:
- There has been a major shift in the balance of housing allocations, away from the west of the borough over to the east, especially around the historic town of Faversham. This is a move that raises many concerns.
- A new large allocation, with accompanying A2 bypass, has appeared around Teynham and Lynsted, to which we are objecting.
- Housing allocations in the AONB around Neames Forstal that were judged “unsuitable” by the council’s own officers have now appeared as part of the housing numbers.
- Most of the housing allocations being proposed are on greenfield sites, many of them on Grade 1 agricultural land – a point to which we are strongly objecting.
Concerns about the rush to submit the plan
The haste with which the plan is being prepared is especially worrying given the concentration of housing in Faversham. If the town is to take a large amount of new housing, it is imperative that the policies concerning the area are carefully worked out to preserve, as far as possible, the unique nature of the town. The rush to submit the plan is likely to prove detrimental.
As Swale does not have a five-year land housing supply, it is open to speculative development proposals, many of which would run counter to the ideas contained in the current plan. Some are already appearing. This is a common situation, and one that, doubtless, is a reason behind Swale’s haste.
Our overriding fear, however, is that this emphasis on haste is ultimately going to prove counterproductive. This is because it is our view that the plan, in its current form, is unlikely to pass independent examination. We are urging Swale to listen to and act upon the comments being made about the plan and to return the plan to the council with appropriate modifications before submitting it to the Secretary of State.
Essentially, this means treating the current consultation not as the final one but as the ‘lost’ second consultation.
The consultation ends on Friday 30 April and we strongly urge residents to make their opinions known if they have not already done so.
Further information
