Copied from my fracking web-site re
PLANNING: The wider
Spatial Planning context: this is of relevance because fracking
progressively covers a large area and thus accumulates its impact
(furthermore e.g. by requiring water from elsewhere there is the
on that water source to be assessed): This
type of accumulating impact (& wider impacts) is taken into
(or partly so ??) by the planning
system but I've yet to investigate how, thus am collecting
REFS for reading when I get time: Ch.6 'Spatial Planning &
Prof. Vincent Goodstadt et al. (PP on e.g. p.123), Goodstadt on TIA (ppt download) - Replace
(Environmental Impact Assessment) / SEA (Strategic Environmental
Assessment) with TIA (Territorial Assessment)?? (powerpoint)
& on 'an ecosystems approach and
4pp pdf (DEFRA link) - these articles refer to e.g. EIA and
Prof. Alister Scott
pointed me to V.C.'s work]
PLANNING WEBSITES or web-pages
Birmingham City University RELU - Rural
Economy and Land Use ProgrammeManaging
Change at the Fringe:
Reconnecting Science and Policy with the Rural-Urban Fringe RUF
or visit ourTwitter
values: The RUF
is valued differently
by different people and those values need to be unpacked using monetary
non-monetary approaches. There is a
danger that, in decision making we only
value what can be easily measured, as opposed to measuring what people
value." - looks like this will apply to
Strawberry field lapwing site Kendal.
in Guardian "Subject: Infrastructure Bill: Act now, Sound An
Alarm, spread the word... any public land could be taken from us and
given to developers !!!
This was sent to me by the secretary of Hands
Off Our Forest, a pressure group dedicated to keeping the
Forest of Dean and other public woodlands in public ownership.
I'm forwarding this complete as it is so full of implications.
Almost every paragraph causes concern.
AND this next stage in parliament is too soon as they take ages to get
through their emails.
It seems that this government has ignored the people's very big and very
strong and very angry response
to the attempt previously to privatise the land that belongs to all of
Yes , they are attempting to do the give away of our countryside by the
back door .
Apologies to anyone who receives this more than once, but this is
ACTION IS NEEDED NOW TO HALT PROPOSED LEGISLATION WHICH WILL ALLOW ALL
PUBLIC LAND IN ENGLAND AND WALES TO BE PRIVATISED
DEBATE (SECOND READING) IN HOUSE OF LORDS THIS WEDNESDAY (JUNE 18)
" At our meeting this week, we decided we must press for an exemption
for the Public Forest Estate (that is, all those woodlands in England
that are owned by all of us, and managed by the Forestry Commission)
within the Infrastructure Bill...
You may recall that we kicked up quite a fuss in 2010/11 over plans for
the forest sell-off, and the law which would have made it possible, the
Public Bodies Bill. Our campaign, in association with others around the
country and national efforts has transcended politics, class and many,
many interests because our public woodlands mean so much to so many
people (40 million visit them in England every year)
Once a statement has been agreed by us all on the HOOF Steering Group, I
will be sending it out... our remit is our own Forest and its
surrounding, or contiguous woodlands, so the statement will focus on our
group's interest (see www.handsoffourforest.org)
However, I feel compelled to give everyone a heads up and try to raise
the alarm because this Bill is a massive juggernaut and could hit us
before we've had a chance to take evasive action. It affects ANY public
land and all private land except that owned by the Queen and Royal
I hope you can pass this message on to all your contacts. I hope the
media will take notice and journalists and columnists will investigate
the issue, and it will be reported.
The Queen's Speech announcing the Infrastructure Bill was on June 2, it
was introduced to the House of Lords three days later, and gets its
second reading (and first debate) this coming Wednesday, June 18. Last
time I looked, only a handful of peers are due to take part in the
debate. I believe if more were aware of the contents of the Bill, and
its massive enabling powers, many more Peers would be taking part - as
they did in the Public Bodies Bill debates in late 2010/ early 2011.
The Bill is designed to fulfil a number of functions, so many in fact
it's easy to only concentrate on that hot potato, fracking, and possibly
also the HS2 railway line - personally I am opposed to both, but the
Bill enables far more than that.
There is also the issue of the need to build more houses. However, is it
right that all these developments should take place on the precious
little public land there is? Isn't it our land, the people's, and
shouldn't we have a say in what happens to it? As about three-quarters
of the acreage of Britain belongs to 0.6% of the population (see Kevin
Cahill's Who Owns Britain?), can't they spare any of their land to be
What the Bill proposes is that the Secretary of State can hand over any
amount of public land to the arms-length, non-departmental Government
body, the Homes & Communities Agency. The HCA can then dispose of it
to developers. There will be no need to go through local authority
planning processes - the Sec of State can give the green light without
any local politicians or planners' involvement, just by consulting a
panel of two people.
As for public rights of way, the proposed law allows any of them to be
extinguished. There is no need for permission for easements (ie roads,
powerlines, railways. drilling, tunnels, etc). And any existing laws
that protects land and prevents it being built on, appear to be
overriden by one simple enabling clause (quoted from the Bill, see
3 Transfer schemes...
2 (1) The property, rights and liabilities that may be transferred by a
Sorry I could not put the whole report in, too many characters.
Please tell the Guardian to get in touch with the Forest of Dean Group
that have all the information."