In September 2024, members of the Climate Action Network collaborated on a response to the Government's National Planning Policy Framework.
A full response is available by emailing us. We summarise some of the key points as follows:
We are concerned about the pressure to build in areas of Southampton and other towns where there are high levels of pollution, lack of green space, shortage of green infrastructure, lack of resilience to heatwaves, limited community facilities or poor housing mix. Much more needs to be done to bring empty homes back into use and tackle second home ownership.
We are really concerned about the pressure to build fast, which is impacting on the quality of development. Too many developers aren't sufficiently focused on sustainability and are currently building houses which aren't fit for purpose long term, e.g. installing two solar panels on roofs that could accommodate many more. This will cost more in the long run and won't support us to meet climate emission reduction commitments.
Planning should include Biodiversity Net Gain as part of its overall ethos and principles.and bio-regional approaches which address issues such as food security, water catchments, wind strength, air quality, transport infrastructure, green spaces, plus nature conservation areas and habitat protection.
Environmental impact should be considered whatever the status of any piece of land e.g. brownfield land can include rich habitats.
In the draft National Planning Policy Framework there is repeated use of the term ‘sustainable locations’ yet there is no definition of what constitutes a sustainable location. Consideration should include sustainable materials and the provision of amenities, as well as provision for non-car transport, ensuring there are no
additional risks of flooding or climate change exacerbation, and enabling the protection of land capital to support future food security and nature’s
recovery. Sustainabilility is a multi-faceted issue, which can often be used as shorthand for "near a public transport route"..
We are worried about words such as “subject to viability” which can easily provide a loophole for developers, preventing adequate numbers of affordable homes to be built, lack of adequate access to green spaces or inadequate provision of public transport services such as new bus routes that are sustained long term.
We agree with a policy that encourages a mix of tenure types. This must include ensuring there is no ‘two tier’ arrangement whereby the ‘affordable’
homes have less access to facilities, green spaces etc. This is an equalities issue.
Equality impact assessments ,as part of development proposals, should be prepared with input from people with lived experience and related organisations that represent people with lived experience of marginalisation.
Did you know there is a proposal by ExxonMobil for a pipeline to transport CO2 into a storage site in the English Channel? The SoCAN team have looked at it and have submitted the following response:
Response to Solent CO2 pipeline consultation from Southampton Climate Action Network (SoCAN)
We are deeply concerned that one of the main aims of the pipeline will be to facilitate production of so-called ‘blue’ hydrogen at Fawley, which in reality would be no greener than ‘grey’ hydrogen (see here).
Carbon capture and storage is inefficient and expensive and leads to increased energy consumption to power the process. The flaws in the whole concept of CCS are highlighted in the report by the Institure of Energy Economics & Financial Analysis which shows that the majority of projects hve failed or are underperforming, and the most successful ones are those which use the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (thus worsening emissions!) https://ieefa.org/resources/carbon-capture-crux-lessons-learned
The environmental harm resulting from any of the proposed routes is unacceptable and none should be taken forward. We endorse the response from Transition Southampton which point out both the environmental damage and the inappropriateness of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a ‘solution’ to carbon emissions.
Finally, the analysis by the Solent Protection Society shows that the pipeline itself is pointless in the absence of any evidence regarding both the feasibility of the carbon capture process itself and the safety and feasibility of the proposed storage location in the Solent. Money (especially taxpayer money) must be directed toward solutions which reduce emissions at source rather wasted on attempting to capture and bury (some of) them afterwards.