Author Archives: David Mairs

Doing archaeology better

Posted , filed under Planning
Large, vehicle-mounted systems can cover wide areas quickly (pic Drilline)

Unearthing and recording our hidden past can be one of the many aspects to be addressed in considering planning applications, but are technological developments not being taken advantage of or even understood? CPRE Kent’s Ashford committee has been investigating.

Our past, it could be argued, is of as much importance as our present and our future. For those of us involved in the conservation of the county’s historical, cultural and natural heritage, it is perhaps ironic that much of the knowledge of our medieval and prehistory is unearthed during development schemes.


While rural campaigners might despair at the loss of yet more countryside, such projects can excite archaeologists, whereas developers often engage with search processes with only limited enthusiasm as they face potential time delays and high survey costs.

Developers’ desk research can be useful but miss areas of archaeological potential – the ‘white space’ on the all-important Kent Historic Environment Record (HER) might simply be the result of a lack of looking.
Taken in its entirety, it’s not a satisfactory situation and CPRE Kent’s Ashford committee has being focusing on the subject, exploring whether contemporary scanning technology could enhance archaeological search without the need for excessive digging.

The committee found that scanning technology is little used by developers’ archaeological consultants – utility companies, on the other hand, have embraced the process more enthusiastically. It’s a surprising conclusion given the amount of time and of course money that could be saved through use of the ‘smarter’ geophysical technology. Indeed, so time-consuming and expensive can the archaeological process be that a development might be shelved altogether.

Even when a scheme is built out, the time lost can be striking. At Appledore, for example, a planning application for four houses was registered in June 2017 and granted permission in May 2019, when an archaeological dig caused a delay of almost 12 months. The land was then sold to another developer, which submitted a further planning application and secured permission for five houses and a revised layout. This was registered in July 2020 and granted permission in December the same year, resulting in another archaeological dig causing more delay – the development is expected to be completed by the middle of this year, while the report and findings of the archaeological consultant have yet to be seen.


If we are to speed things up, one of the most promising forms of new technology is Ground Penetration Radar (GPR) and the Ashford committee learnt about it during a presentation by Matthew Bunting, managing director of Drilline Solutions, the first company in the UK to sell GPR gear commercially. He belongs to the Chartered Institution of Civil Surveying Engineers, which is promoting the use of GPR and trenchless technology.

GPR does not eliminate the need for digging (or ‘trenching’) but reduces how much is necessary and speeds up the development process. Cost ranges from £10,000 to £150,000, but the equipment suitable for archaeological purposes should not exceed £20,000 in price – an outlay that could pay for itself relatively quickly and be useable for at least a decade.

Although the potential for archaeological use is clear, GPR has been used largely for utility mapping, for example at Gatwick airport. In road engineering, it can determine asphalt thickness or degradation, while on the railways it has been used to detect moisture and clay in ballast and whether there is potentially dangerous movement from the washing away of clay.

Various systems are used:

  • Entry-level: used on most sites, with a dual-frequency radar that has a low and a high frequency, this can go two or three metres deep. Pushed by hand, it can be connected to GPS and plot where everything is in real time.
  • Stream-C: a larger system and single-frequency at 600 MHz. Useful for archaeological digs as it has 32 antennae, giving excellent resolution.
  • For small objects in shallow ground: a hand-held device that operates at 2GHz and can pinpoint individual layering of ground. Generally used for concrete but can help analyse the first 80cm of ground.
  • Large, vehicle-mounted system: can cover a large area quickly and is dual-frequency, running at 200 MHz and 600 MHz. Recently deployed in the building of a bypass in Staffordshire, where it is being used to locate utilities and archaeological remains. Surveys can be done quickly at speeds up to 50mph

GPR can identify soil disturbance, so if soil is replaced after a hole has been dug that can be detected. Resulting images are called B-scans (‘brightness scans’).

Another advantage of GPR is that it can be used to show where digging should be focused: the ‘test windows’. Although this is rarely done in the UK due to the expense and the fact equipment is often outdated, in truth an outlay of say £15,000 is not overly substantial when the cost of building a housing estate is considered – further, as well as finding archaeological remains, it can help avoid utilities and voids. A lot of money is spent repairing utilities after holes have been dug in the wrong place, while there is also the cost of resultant fines.

If not in the UK, the merits of such geophysical methods are appreciated in Norway, where any development – even a house extension – requires a GPR survey.

Other companies, including for example, GSSI and MALA, sell GPR equipment. GSSI is the preferred option for archaeologists as it goes down to a low frequency, while MALA is a low-cost solution used commonly on construction sites but infrequently in an archaeological or planning context.

Indeed, the archaeological world has been slow to embrace the use of GPR, perhaps because it doesn’t allow any remains found to be dated or have their significance verified. Dating is naturally a critical aspect for archaeologists, so a combination of trenching and geophysical technology is probably the way forward.

It is an issue close to the heart of Wendy Rogers, a senior archaeologist with the county council’s heritage team who acknowledges both the opportunity that development presents and the need to move with the times.

In a separate address to the Ashford committee, Ms Rogers said that, given context, she was keen to see GPR used. In planning, so much is dictated by time and resources, but if there is time on larger sites geophysical surveying can be requested, especially as the process is now becoming markedly cheaper.

There are two approaches when talking to a developer or contractor: one is when there is already an idea of what might be found, while the other is going in ‘blind’ to see what might be discovered.

Roman building material might be evident on a site, so a team will study aerial photographs to see if there are signs of a Roman building. There could be a recommendation for a geophysical survey, while there might possibly also be metal-detecting finds.

Other resources include old Ordnance Survey maps and knowledge of geology and land use. An analysis of what is known about the site both in terms of archaeology and the type of proposed development will help guide what work, if any, is necessary if it is believed something of interest is present.

The National Planning Policy Framework stresses the word ‘potential’ in relation to archaeological remains, so that can be enough to trigger a search.

GPR is useful, said Ms Rogers, but it is unable to date finds or verify significance. It might highlight an anomaly, but it cannot tell if it is Roman or recent.

If the process were free and without time restraints, her team would ask for GPR on all relevant greenfield sites, but as this is not the case the easiest method to find anything of archaeological significance on a greenfield or industrial site is trenching.

Trenches measure 20 x 1.5 metres and are dug over 5 per cent of a development site, giving enough evidence of remains of significance. If a geophysical survey is carried out, trenches will be targeted on any anomalies. Trenching will always be necessary to clarify date, function and significance, which is what is wanted in the NPPF, said Ms Rogers. GPR is rarely able to determine the significance of archaeological discoveries.

Developers tend to be highly restrictive with archaeological costs that are not part of their scheme and are obviously keen to ensure profit margins make it viable. With the need for other work such as ecological surveys, they are not inclined to fund archaeological work before planning consent has been granted, so the minimum spend, in the form of trenching, will be assigned. Once consent has been granted, however, developers are often happier to allow the necessary time and funds.

While some might lament a perceived reluctance to adopt new technology, there is nevertheless regular updating of techniques among archaeological contractors.

Drones are increasingly used to take aerial shots for excavations and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR). The Environment Agency’s LiDAR is accessible on its website but not of high enough resolution for archaeological assessment of landscape issues – it is, though, sometimes used for larger Heritage Lottery Fund projects.

Happily, some techniques are becoming substantially cheaper, while their variety is increasing: aside from GPR, we have the magnetometer, resistivity (which can detect stone walls) and magnetic susceptivity, which can highlight clusters of activity.

In short, an open mind and willingness to adopt an attitude of trial and error have never offered so much potential.

While it is clearly right and proper to know what has happened in the past, some in the Ashford committee question whether present archaeological practices are out of balance and slightly indulgent or indeed if the cost and delays are affordable and justified.

Like it or not, we have to accept change and in a sense perhaps the best way we can do that is to look back. Archaeology helps us in that regard – we just need to do it better.

Archaeological digs caused substantial delays at this development site in Appledore

Friday, June 3, 2022

Green Belt: the countryside next door to 30 million people needs investment to level up access to nature, says CPRE

Posted , filed under Green Belt
The Green Belt is a treasured asset for millions (pic Alex Hills)

The Green Belt is missing out on government funding for the restoration of nature and cultural heritage despite it being the countryside next door to 30 million people – or more than half of England’s population.

Valued spaces such as the parkland setting of Bentley Priory – the headquarters of the RAF during the Battle of Britain – are at risk of neglect or loss. The government is being urged to meet its commitments to both protect and enhance Green Belt land or risk losing it to development forever.

So called ‘agri-environment’ schemes to plant trees, improve soil health, boost biodiversity and restore historic parks and buildings are not sufficiently benefiting the countryside that is most accessible to the general public. The findings come as repeated studies show the countryside around our most populous towns and cities is increasingly valued by the public.

Analysis by CPRE, the countryside charity, of a recent government study shows that four out of the 10 most valued parks in England are on Green Belt land. Land managers interviewed by CPRE confirmed the surge in the number of people visiting historic sites and beauty spots first reported during lockdown has continued to remain strong, with the Green Belt increasingly being used for walking and recreation.

Just over a quarter (28 per cent) of Green Belt agricultural land is covered by agri-environment schemes, compared with 42 per cent nationwide. Only 7 per cent of all national spending is on Green Belt land, even though Green Belts contain 11 per cent of all England’s farmland.

A new report by CPRE recommends boosting funding for the countryside next door to our towns and cities. In addition to improving access to nature, the schemes should aim for broader public benefits such as strategically planting trees and hedgerows to prevent urban flooding.

The countryside next door: why we need to invest in greener, healthier Green Belts is the first research to analyse the geographical spread of where agri-environment funding has been spent. The government is initiating a new regime of Environmental Land Management (ELM) schemes to replace previous agricultural and land management subsidies. The report demonstrates that the new schemes are the most important means by which the government’s own pledge to safeguard and improve the Green Belt can be met.

Crispin Truman, chief executive of CPRE, the countryside charity, said: “The government needs to invest in the Green Belt on a major scale if ministers are to meet their political commitments to protecting and enhancing the countryside next door for 30 million people.

“The alternative to funding the Green Belt increases the risk of it being built on it instead. History repeatedly shows that when protected countryside is under-appreciated it’s at risk of being lost forever to development. 

“People deserve countryside on their doorstep where agriculture is less intensive, where there is space for nature that everyone can explore and enjoy and which is accessible to all. Green Belts have a crucial role in enhancing the sustainability of our cities. Green Belt land can provide essential ecological functions and recreational benefits that are fundamental to health and well-being. And this can go hand in hand with sustainable agricultural production and climate-change mitigation.”

The Green Belt includes more than 6,000 miles of public rights of way, 34 per cent of all England’s nature reserves and 22 per cent of its historic parks and gardens. The report shows that many social groups face particular challenges accessing these places, such as crossing busy roads, stiles and a lack of reliable public transport.

Against a background of cuts to local government budgets for supporting parks and green spaces, funding from existing agri-environment schemes has played an essential role in maintaining historic parks around our towns and cities and making them more accessible.

That’s why CPRE is calling for a significant increase in investment in the Green Belt through ELMs, to improve the countryside environment closest to where the majority of people live. The government committed in the Levelling Up Bill to “improved Green Belts around towns and cities” and to “develop plans for further greening of the Green Belt in England”.

To address deprivation and ensure as many people as possible benefit, there should also be new investment to improve the countryside around large cities that don’t have a protected Green Belt, such as Leicester, Norwich, south Hampshire and Teesside.

Ben Goldsmith, vice-chair of London Rewilding and a Defra board member, said: “Few people grasp the degree to which the natural fabric of Britain has become depleted. Sights, sounds and smells that were common to previous generations are unknown to much of ours.

“A lack of access to green spaces exacerbates the disconnect from nature now experienced by great swathes of our society. Britain’s Green Belt areas offer a tremendously exciting opportunity to reinvigorate nature right on the doorstep of tens of millions of people, reconnecting rural and urban nature and bringing wildlife into our most densely populated centres. This report from CPRE, which articulates how we might go about rewilding our green belts, is spot on and hugely exciting.”

Monday, May 30, 2022

Presentation to Sir Robert a highlight of special day in Kent

Posted , filed under People
John Wotton, CPRE Kent chair with Sir Robert Worcester (and plaque)

Earlier this month (May 11-12), trustees and senior staff of CPRE’s national charity visited us in Kent.

Their visit started with a tour of Ebbsfleet, followed by strategy discussions and a networking reception and dinner in the evening. The patron of CPRE Kent, Sir Robert Worcester, kindly made his home, Allington Castle, available for the evening. This was a magnificent venue for a gathering of representatives of national CPRE, CPRE Kent, several neighbouring CPRE branches and many other organisations concerned with protecting or promoting the Kent countryside.

Sir Robert, Simon Murray (chair of national CPRE), John Wotton (chair of CPRE Kent) and Sarah Barker (chair of the Kent Association of Local Authorities) all spoke before the dinner.

As a gesture of thanks to Sir Robert for his generosity and stalwart support for CPRE Kent over many years, he was presented with a plaque from CPRE Kent’s Historic Buildings Committee.

The plaque recognises Allington Castle’s quality and importance as a historic building. It is a moated, fortified, medieval manor house built on the site of a Norman castle and has been lovingly restored by Sir Robert after a long period of neglect. It was a truly magnificent venue for the evening.

Thursday, May 26, 2022

Fears over soaring energy costs reduce light pollution, Star Count suggests

Posted , filed under Environment
More than 2,500 people took part in this year’s annual Star Count

A significant reduction in severe light pollution levels, first recorded during lockdown last year, has continued, according to the results of a nationwide star count.
Despite lockdown being well and truly behind us, there does not appear to have been a corresponding increase in light levels from outdoor and street lighting.
The ‘lockdown legacy’ of working from home and rising energy prices has created an opportunity to permanently improve our view of the night sky, says CPRE, the countryside charity.
Office-based organisations switching to permanent home working, coupled with employers’ desire to reduce electricity bills, appear to have led to fewer lights being left on overnight.
This, alongside households being more conscious about wasting energy and councils reducing street lighting and switching to better lighting design, are believed to be behind the continued reduction in light pollution.
More than 2,500 people took part in the annual Star Count, the country’s biggest citizen science project of its kind, between February 26 and March 6. Participants were asked to report the number of stars they could see in the Orion constellation.
The results show severe light pollution, defined as being able to see 10 or fewer stars with the naked eye, has continued to fall. After peaking in 2020, when 61 per cent of participants reported seeing 10 stars or less, severe light pollution fell to 51 per cent in 2021 and continued its slide this year, to 49 per cent.
Emma Marrington, CPRE’s dark skies campaigner, said: “Half of the people who took part in Star Count experienced severe light pollution that obscures their view of the night sky. This is bad for wildlife and human health – and the energy being needlessly wasted is bad financially and bad for our planet.
“But the good news is that these results show small adaptations can make a big difference. If there is a silver lining from the legacy of lockdown and now the soaring cost of energy, it is that it has never been clearer how simple it is to cut carbon emissions and energy bills while improving our natural environment.”
A clear view of a star-filled night sky has a hugely beneficial effect on our mental health and, like access to other forms of nature, helps reduce stress and increase a sense of peace and well-being.
Research has even shown that regularly spending time looking at the stars can lower blood pressure and reduce depression. Yet the night sky, which is a hugely significant part of our natural environment, has no legal protection.
Turning off garden lights when not needed, dimming street lights and reducing office lighting could permanently reduce carbon emissions and cut energy bills while improving the natural environment for wildlife and human health.
Other solutions that could reduce both light pollution and energy use include councils investing in well-designed lighting, used only where and when needed. They can also adopt policies in Local Plans to reduce light pollution and protect and enhance existing dark skies in their areas.
Crispin Truman, chief executive of CPRE, the countryside charity, said: “The night sky is one half of our experience of nature, but we don’t often think of it like that. In and of itself, it helps balance our mental health and boost our emotional well-being. Recollect that experience of a starry sky and you instinctively know it soothed you.
“But our view of the night sky – and all the benefits it undoubtedly brings – is being blotted out by light pollution. Like all forms of pollution, it is damaging our mental and physical health, and also having a severe impact on wildlife. Yet it is a form of pollution that is allowed to increase year on year without any effort being made to control the damage it is causing.”
Forty-nine per cent saw 10 or fewer stars compared with 51 per cent last year. This is the lowest percentage of people reporting 10 or fewer, indicating the most severe light pollution. This could be due to the continued effect of lockdown and changing behaviours such as hybrid working or less ambient light.
Three per cent saw more than 30 stars, compared with 5 per cent last year. That’s a reduction of 2 per cent since the last Star Count in 2021 of people who report experiencing truly dark skies.

Results for Star Count 2022

Stars countedNumberPer cent
0>528311.1
6>1095837.6
11>1566326.0
16>2031112.2
21>251636.4
26>30943.7
>30783.1
   
TOTAL2,550100

Star Count results compared with previous years (number of stars counted within the constellation of Orion):

  
Year0 >56 > 1011> 1516 > 2021> 2526> 3031>  
200714%40%24%12%6%2%2%100%
201116%43%22%11%5%2%1%100%
201214%39%23%13%6%3%2%100%
201317%37%22%10%6%3%5%100%
201419%39%21%9%5%3%4%100%
201915%42%22%11%7%2%2%100%
202018%43%22%9%4%1%3%100%
202112%40%24%12%6%2%5%100%
202211%38%26%12%6%4%3%100%

Tuesday, May 17, 2022

Let June Bloom! CPRE Kent launches a very special campaign

Posted , filed under Campaigns
Our butterflies – this is a marbled white – are among the wide range of wildlife that depends on flowers

CPRE Kent, the countryside charity, is launching a new campaign, Let June Bloom.
Plantlife’s extremely successful No Mow May campaign is fantastic for helping protect spring flora – but it doesn’t stop there.
Our insect population is in freefall, the decline being eight times faster than that of mammals and birds; however, all are linked through the food chain.
The use of insecticides and plastic grass, the emphasis on neat and tidy gardens and the changing nature of our seasons due to global warming all negatively affect our precious insect population, leading to catastrophic decline. This is where Let June Bloom can help a little and give our insects a chance to thrive and in turn help our larger fauna.
Many wildflowers and insects come alive during June. Plants such as cowslip, evening primrose, meadow clary and wild foxglove all bloom in this month.
Insects that hatch in June include large white, small white and small blue butterflies.
June also sees the hatching of caterpillars such as copper underwing, garden tiger and gypsy moth, along with insect larvae including sawflies and beetles. Bees such as red-tailed bumblebee, tree bumblebee, wool carder bee, orange-tailed mining bee are all very active during this special month.
Allowing June to bloom is vital so wildflowers can carry on providing pollen for a host of insect species, allowing eggs of moths, butterflies and beetles to hatch and feed and so help our insect population thrive.
Vicky Ellis, of CPRE Kent, said: “June is such a special month for our wildlife. We’re asking people to give it the best possible chance by not cutting back the flowers on which so much of it – and ultimately all of us – depends. Let June Bloom!”

Wednesday, May 4, 2022

Lower Thames Crossing: what might be the final consultation begins tomorrow

Posted , filed under Roads
Lower Thames Crossing… it’s time for another consultation

Lower Thames Crossing. Consultations. We’ve been here before, right?
Well, yes, the build-up to the potential building of the new road does seem to have been around a long time, but the next consultation is, we suspect, likely to be the last before National Highways resubmits its plans.

The Local Refinement Consultation begins tomorrow (Thursday, May 12) and ends on Monday, June 20.

If this is indeed to be the final consultation, we would urge all interested to make their views known.

NH says the consultation gives “giving local communities the chance to have their say on some refinements to the project”.

It adds: “The Local Refinement Consultation is taking place to share a number of updates made to the project based on feedback from a consultation in 2021, ongoing stakeholder engagement and technical surveys.

“Following feedback from Thurrock Council the project has also amended its plans for Tilbury Fields, a new public park on the north bank of the Thames, to make space for the planned Thames Freeport.”

Proposed refinements include:

  • More public open space to the east of the tunnel entrance in Kent, connected to Chalk Park – the proposed new public park overlooking the Thames
  • Additional environmental compensation and mitigation, with potential woodland and public access
  • Replace a slip road on the A13 junction with a new link from the Orsett Cock roundabout to the A1089 to reduce traffic impacts on local roads
  • Modifying the access to the northern tunnel portal, providing safer operation of the tunnel facilities and better access for emergency services
  • A new footbridge over the A127 and further improvements for walkers, cyclists and horse-riders, including improved bridleways
  • Further refinement of utility works to enable the project to be built

NH is holding a series of public information events:

Kent

Friday, May 20 (2pm-8pm): Cascades Leisure Centre, Thong Lane, Gravesend DA12 4LG

Monday, May 23 (2pm-8pm): Village Hotel, Castle View, Forstal Road, Maidstone ME14 3AQ

Thursday, June 9 (2pm-8pm): Bridgewood Manor Hotel, near Bluebell Hill, Walderslade Woods, Chatham ME5 9AX

Friday, 10 June (2pm-8pm): Shorne Village Hall, 16 The Street, Shorne DA12 3EA

Essex

Thursday, May 19 (2pm-8pm): The Civic Hall, Blackshots Lane, Grays RM16 2JU

Friday, May 27 (2pm-8pm): North Street Hall, 24 North Street, Hornchurch RM11 1QX

Monday, June 9 (2pm-8pm): East Thurrock Community Association, 77 Corringham Road, Stanford-le-Hope SS17 0NU

Tuesday, June 7 (2pm-8pm): Tilbury Community Association, Civic Square, Tilbury RM18 8AA

Monday, June 13 (2pm-8pm): Orsett Hall Hotel, Prince Charles Avenue, Orsett RM16 3HS

  • You can order a consultation pack here (alternatively phone 0300 123 5000 or email info@lowerthamescrossing.co.uk)
  • The National Highways dedicated LTC web page is here
  • For more on the LTC, see here
  • To read CPRE Kent’s response to the spring 2020 LTC consultation, click here

Wednesday, May 11, 2022

Planning and the countryside: FAQs

Featured

Posted , filed under Planning

Tackling the planning system can sometimes appear a nightmarish proposition for even the best-informed. So our planning experts at CPRE Kent have got together to produce an FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) guide to planning and wider countryside issues. You can read it here

Blinded by the lights

Posted , filed under Environment
The skies above Thanet Earth appear to be ablaze on some nights (pic Steve Geliot)

A vast glasshouse complex in Thanet is one of the greatest sources of light pollution in the country. Steve Geliot has been researching the potential impact on both people and wildlife and suggests that it really should not be too difficult to design structures that are kinder to us all.

In 2001 a movie called The Glass House tanked at the box office and lost a lot of money. Released just days after the 9/11 attacks, you could put this down to being the wrong film at the wrong time, but critics were generally in agreement about its shortcomings. The website Rotten Tomatoes says: “Due to obvious plot twists and foreshadowing, The Glass House fails to thrill. By the end it degenerates into ludicrousness”.

Birchington has what many might call a ludicrous glasshouse story of the literal variety – one that, in terms of environmental credentials, might merit a rotten tomato or two.

In my work as a campaigning artist, I have found myself becoming a citizen scientist using remote sensing from satellites to map and measure light pollution, thanks to some amazing mentoring from Professor Chris Kyba in Potsdam.

The group of glasshouses near Birchington known as Thanet Earth stands out as one of the worst sources of light pollution in the entire country.

Its green-and-blue-branded website states that the site grows tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers – vegetables that one might normally import from the sunnier parts of southern Europe. This could potentially be a good thing since it avoids emissions created by long-distance hauling of produce.

The website boasts that “Britain’s leading glasshouse complex sits proudly within the landscape of East Kent” and adds that “innovation, environmental concern and a focus on quality combine with cutting-edge technology, international expertise and the best growing conditions in the UK to produce unrivalled taste on a commercial scale”.

If we are avoiding all the carbon emissions of shipping produce from Spain, surely these are fair claims?

Well, maybe not. I’m not an expert on hydroponics, so I don’t know what sort of chemical fertilisers or pest and disease controls are used, or if any of these things find their way into the environment. However, as well as having a rough idea of electricity consumption, we can measure the light emissions without putting a foot inside the building.

The units (summed radiance nW/cm2sr) can seem confusing, so let’s make a quick comparison. An area of about 4 sq km in the West End of London, including Leicester Square, emits about 3,600 units and is actually decreasing in brightness by 0.5 per cent a year, owing to small improvements in street-light design. By comparison, the same area at Thanet Earth is emitting about 12,000 units, and this is increasing annually by an average of 12.5 per cent a year. That is three times as bright as central London.

The website accepts Thanet Earth uses some 40,000 lights, each of which is 1,000 watts. Just think about it for a moment: that equates to some 40 million watts of electricity being used.

The Eye Hortilux High Pressure Sodium bulbs used are not efficient and pump out a huge amount of heat. I know because I bought one to test.

The lights at Thanet Earth come on at night but can stay on during the day to supplement daylight – so maybe they are burning for about 17 hours a day during winter.

The website talks about blinds to screen off the light and that unavoidably there are some small gaps; however, when I visited at night and photographed this impressive volcano of light pollution I could see no evidence of such blinds. There was some ragged black plastic mesh on the sides of the glasshouses, but a vast amount of light and heat was bouncing straight up into the sky without any effective measure to contain it.

If we are going to take any environmental claims seriously, we need to see some comparative figures for the emissions involved in transporting tomatoes from Spain against the emissions, including light emissions, from these glasshouses. Only then can we assess what is going on from a net-zero perspective.

Why does it matter? Well, the climate-busting use of electricity is obvious, but science is showing that artificial light at night is driving insect declines, impacting on bird migrations, and evidence is growing about the ways in which light pollution impacts human health.

Artificial light increases obesity rates and drives anxiety and depression, especially in teenagers. That is why the screen colour of iPhones changes in the evening. These well-researched harms to your health are known and manufacturers don’t want to be sued.

Chronic exposure to artificial light at night also makes it a little more likely that pre-cancerous cells in breast tissue change and become active cancer. If you already have breast cancer and are on a drug called Tamoxifen, then that drip-drip chronic exposure to artificial light at night makes the Tamoxifen less effective and reduces the chances of recovery.

Artificial light at night and poor sleep are also implicated more generally in inflammatory illnesses, while there is growing evidence about its role in thyroid cancer.

The light pollution from Thanet Earth blights much of the east Kent night sky (pic Steve Geliot)

We can take a more detailed look at how light pollution affects birds. I have been filming the iconic starling murmuration here in Brighton for the last eight years and as part of that have been learning about the science of how and why these dazzling birds do it.

I have also investigated the causes of the dramatic declines that have brought our Brighton murmuration from 100,000 birds in the 1960s to 10,000 last year and just 6,500 this year. The main cause is thought to be insect declines, meaning the starlings don’t have as much to eat.

These insect declines are caused primarily by pesticides, but light pollution also plays a significant role in driving insect decline. Maybe there is even more to consider. Our dwindling UK starling flocks consist of birds that live here year-round that are joined in autumn by many hundreds of thousands that migrate to the UK from areas of north-east Europe with cold winters.

These migrations across the North Sea between The Netherlands and Norfolk take place at night. The Dutch and Belgian coasts are the brightest part of Europe due to the hundreds of greenhouses just like Thanet Earth. This light pollution, mainly from the area known as Westland, close to Rotterdam, is six times as bright as that in New York.

To navigate at night, starlings, as well as many other birds, use a sense called magneto-reception, meaning they can literally see Earth’s magnetic field. However, it is quite a subtle sense and seriously disrupted by light in the yellow to red part of the spectrum, which is exactly what is emitted by these huge greenhouses.

Starling mortality appears to be occurring mainly in juveniles failing to make it past their first year. Juveniles have not yet established or learned their migration route, so their first journey is an epic challenge. Their magneto-reception is only just forming and is probably weaker and more vulnerable to this kind of sensory pollution. My theory, and it is only a theory that has yet to be researched, is that some losses might be explained by juvenile birds not successfully navigating their first migration past that huge wall of light on the Dutch coast.

Brightly-lit glasshouses in the UK will probably also be problematic for bird navigation.

If you mess with the natural day-night arrangement to the extent that is happening at Thanet Earth, and on an even larger scale in Westland, you are not really a friend to wildlife and it is questionable whether you are a friend to the wider community.

If we take a forensic look at the cost of these huge, arguably badly-designed glasshouses in terms of climate, in terms of wildlife and in terms of human health, we can only conclude that, in this instance at least, modern farming degenerates into ludicrousness.

Environmentally speaking, I believe these really are rotten tomatoes. It is frustrating because it is simply a matter of design. We have world-class glass manufacturers in the UK, so surely it would be possible to develop a world-class design for a glasshouse that allows light in but doesn’t allow light out.

‘When I visited at night and photographed this impressive volcano of light pollution I could see no evidence of such blinds’ (pic Steve Geliot)

Tuesday, May 10, 2022

Laying the building myth to rest

Posted , filed under Planning
And the build goes on… but it’s not of much use to local people wanting a home

In this concerning piece, Richard Thompson, CPRE Kent planner, spears the ridiculous notion that simply building more houses will make them more affordable. He highlights that this concept underpins the standard methodology for calculating housing, which, if left unchallenged, will lead to yet more sacrifice of greenfield land to unaffordable market housing without the needed delivery of truly affordable housing.

An article published in the county’s media as winter drew to its close highlighted the absurdity of government thinking that private-sector housebuilding alone would solve the housing affordability crisis.

The fact is, while ever-more houses are being built, the gap between house prices and earnings is still increasing, while much-needed affordable housing is simply not being built.

A stark example of this national policy failure at the local level can be found by looking in detail at the provision of affordable housing in the Canterbury district over the last 10 years.

Within Canterbury district, the average cost of a new-build dwelling has increased from £160,476 in September 2011 to £317,381 in September 2021. That’s almost a doubling of prices in 10 years.

Unsurprisingly, this market price is not affordable for most Canterbury residents. In fact, Canterbury City Council itself considers an income of more than £75,000 would be required to buy a house at this price without assistance.

It believes this equates to only 2 per cent of the population of Canterbury. Or, put another way, 98 per cent of Canterbury residents cannot afford a new-build home on the open market in the district on their incomes alone. Assistance therefore comes via affordable home-ownership ‘products’ such as Help to Buy and shared-ownership schemes. These all fall within the formal planning definition of affordable housing as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). However, many of these affordable home-ownership products are still not actually affordable to most Canterbury residents.

The table below assesses each of the different affordable home-ownership products against the income required to afford them and then considers what percentage of the district would not be able to afford these products.

Affordable Home Ownership Options SchemeIncome RequiredHouseholds Unable to Afford (all households)Households Unable to Afford (private renters)
Help to Buy: Equity Loan (20%)£67,01895%98%
Help to Buy: Shared Ownership (50%)£60,41993%97%
First Homes (30% discount)£52,56790%94%
Help to Buy: Shared Ownership (25%)£50,79090%93%
Rent to Buy (80% of median rent)£23,32332%46%

Yes, you have read correctly – it is the council’s own assessment that 98 per cent of Canterbury residents who currently rent are considered unable to afford the government’s flagship Help to Buy: Equity Loan scheme. Across all the schemes, at best, only 54 per cent of current renters would be able to afford the ‘cheapest’ rent-to-buy route to home ownership.

For those left, the only option is to rent. However, paying open-market rents is deemed unaffordable for 45 per cent of households in Canterbury.  

For this group, there are two types of rental products that fall within the formal planning definition of ‘affordable housing’. The first is affordable rent, which in Canterbury is some 86-97 per cent of the cheapest market rents, ie not necessarily that affordable and subject to usual market price rises. The second is the social rent, which is set according to a complex formula but is typically between 50 per cent and 60 per cent of market rent. This is the cheapest route to accommodation and in Canterbury is about £435 a month.

It is unsurprising then that the council considers the most pressing affordable housing need for Canterbury is for the genuinely affordable social rent homes. It considers 231 social rent homes are now required a year. There is then a lesser need for affordable home-ownership products (156 required a year) and then affordable rent homes (77 required a year). In total that’s 464 affordable homes required a year in Canterbury.

However, Canterbury City Council, like most Kent councils, does not generally build houses. Rather, the current model is that a developer is expected to use a small proportion of the financial gain it gets from a grant of planning permission to provide a certain number of affordable houses alongside the market houses it sells. In Canterbury, the target is that 30 per cent of all homes built should meet the NPPF planning definition of affordable (though until 2017 was set at 35 per cent for the Canterbury Urban Area).    

So how many affordable homes have been provided in Canterbury under this model over the last 10 years? The next table sets out how many of each type of affordable house has been built over this period and quite clearly shows it to be nowhere near enough.

YearAffordable rentAffordable home ownershipSocial rentTotal
2011/12183393144
2012/13105358121
2013/1410105070
2014/15400040
2015/162030050
2016/173810048
2017/18936045
2018/191937056
2019/20405544139
2020/213522057
Total239286245770

That’s barely a current year’s requirement of social rent homes built in total over the last 10 years. Amazingly, in six out of 10 years not a single social rent home was built. With an overall total of 6,097 new homes having been built within the Canterbury district across this period, that equates to 12.6 per cent affordable homes built across all types against the target of 30-35 per cent.     

So why are the required affordable houses not being built by the development industry? For many, the main reason is that current government policies allow levels of affordable housing to be reduced if a development is not deemed ‘viable’.

In the simplest terms, a development is not deemed viable if it can be demonstrated a developer would make a profit of less than 15-20 per cent once all set costs are accounted for. Significantly, one such set cost is an agreed premium to buy the land by the developer that is usually 20 times the existing value of the land though can be as much as 40 times! Added to this, the greater the perceived need for housing, the lower the ability of the council to negotiate, particularly if the council is subject to the ‘tilted balance’ presumption in favour of granting planning permission.

While the intricacies of viability appraisals are a topic of concern in themselves, the fact is housebuilder profits are soaring all the while the current system is not delivering affordable homes on the ground.

In 2021, when not a single social rent home was built in Canterbury, the four biggest UK housebuilders – Persimmon, Berkeley, Taylor Wimpey and Barratt Homes – reported pre-tax profits of £784 million, £504 million, £492 million and £264 million respectively.

If we delve into this a little deeper, we can see it is developer profit margins alone that have soared over the last 10 years, with the costs of buying development land and cost associated with physically building houses broadly staying the same. This can clearly be seen in the below chart taken from housebuilder Persimmon’s 2021 financial results presentation dated March 2, 2022. The chart gives a total cost breakdown of an average Persimmon new-build home showing that the gross profit element has gone from accounting for £20,763 of the cost of a new-build house in 2010 to £74,481 per house in 2021. That’s more than a tripling of profit margins.            

Despite this, the development industry maintains the problem is simply that not enough homes are being given planning permission. The argument goes that if they were given more permissions to build more houses, then of course more affordable houses would be delivered and market housing would become more affordable.

While the above record in Canterbury suggests otherwise, this argument is flawed for other reasons.

For starters, it can be argued that there is already sufficient planning permission or land available to build on. In Canterbury, there is either an existing planning permission or an identified Local Plan land allocation for 12,334 new homes. Specifically with respect to affordable housing, as of March 2021, there were 1,757 social/affordable rental units with permission in the pipeline. This is more than double the number of affordable homes built in Canterbury over the last 10 years. Despite this, Canterbury has just failed the government’s Housing Delivery Test for not building enough houses, meaning the district is now subject to the presumption that planning permission will be given even if in conflict with the adopted Local Plan. As has been pointed out by CPRE Kent, this is absurd.

There is also the small matter that housebuilders are quite simply not going to build at a level that over-supplies a local housing market, forcing them to reduce prices and lower profits.

The absorption concept was most recently highlighted by Sir Oliver Letwin in his government-commissioned independent review of buildouts. Here he found the “fundamental driver of buildout rates once detailed planning permission is granted for large sites appears to be the ‘absorption rate’ – the rate at which newly-constructed homes can be sold into (or are believed by the housebuilder to be able to be sold successfully into) the local market without materially disturbing the market price”. Alongside this, there are practical constraints such as the current labour and materials shortages.

However, and perhaps most significantly, it is housing market demandrather than need that drives affordability. Currently this demand is being fed as much by monetary policy and financial markets as by physical shortages. Low interest rates and readily available mortgage credit, coupled with state assistance policies such as Help to Buy equity loans, are arguably allowing those already in the position to buy a house to offer ever more. They are often bidding against others in a similar position, pushing the market prices up in the process. Meanwhile, those not already in a position to buy get left even further behind.

So why does this matter?

At the superficial level, CPRE Kent and other similar organisations are often accused of denying local communities much-needed housing when we object to yet more greenfield land being lost to market housing. Taking the Canterbury example, however, the council itself is accepting the new-build market housing dominating the supply is simply not affordable to most existing residents in the district. For those existing residents, they are losing greenfield land important to them to satisfy a wider market demand rather than for their direct benefit.

At the far more important level, though, this matters because the government’s current standard method for calculating how many houses a district needs is linked directly to housing affordability within that district. That is, the bigger the gap between new-build house prices and median earnings in a district, the higher the housing number for that district is. And the government rationale for this is that by building more houses, the cost of housing will come down…

This problem is increasingly urgent. The government affordability data are released on an annual basis, with the 2022 data due on March 23, just before we went to print. On release of these data, housing targets for each council can change overnight. With it reasonable to assume that the gap between house prices and earnings is likely to have widened over the last year for much of Kent, the consequences for the county could be dire.   

The need to revisit the standard methodology for calculating housing is urgent. The need to rethink how we deliver truly affordable housing in a way that doesn’t sacrifice greenfield land to bolster developer profits is arguably even more urgent.  

‘Affordable housing’ schemes

The formal planning definition of affordable housing is set out in Annex 2 of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and, at almost 500 words long, is rather complicated and hard to understand.

The below non-exhaustive list, however, sets out the most popular schemes that currently fall within this formal planning definition of affordable housing:

Type or tenureDescription
Social rent  These properties are provided by local authorities and some registered providers. The rent for these properties will be set at a level dictated by the national rent regime. Social rented properties are the most affordable and what people usually understand as being meant by ‘council housing’.  
Affordable rent  These properties are provided by local authorities and registered providers and are subject to a control that in theory requires the level to be no more than 80% of local market rent. In practice and, as demonstrated in Canterbury, this is not always the case.  
Shared ownership  Previously known as ‘part buy, part rent’, households buy a share of the property and the remaining share is rented. In time, future shares can be purchased and the property could be bought outright/subsequently sold at market rates (though some restrictions might apply in very limited circumstances).  
Shared equity  The applicant purchases a share in the property and no rent is paid on the remaining share, but the purchaser is able to buy further shares in the property until it is owned outright. The house can subsequently be sold at market rates.  
Help to Buy equity loan  The government provides households with an interest-free loan of 10% or 20% of the cost of a new home for a period of five years; purchasers require a mortgage and at least a 5% deposit. The house can subsequently be sold at market rates  
First HomesFirst Homes is a new scheme designed to help local first-time buyers and key workers on to the property ladder by offering homes at a discount of 30% compared with the market price. It is intended that the discounts will apply to the homes forever.  
Build to Rent and Rent to Buy  These properties are usually built as blocks of flats. The property is rented for a set period during which time the tenant saves enough for a deposit to purchase the property at the end of the rental term.  

References

www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/32-per-inch-who-are-pricey-kent-new-builds-for-261858/

UK House Price Index – HM Land Registry Open Data

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1BCdWC6ME7X_b6szgA1E5knDlsta1ooTY

https://lichfields.uk/media/6509/fine-margins_viability-assessments-in-planning-and-plan-making.pdf

www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-build-out-final-report

Thursday, May 5, 2022

The most important question of all?

Posted , filed under Wildlife

Kent author Penny Worms has put together a delightful book that offers children and adults alike an insight into the ecological connectivity of the world around us

Its title seems to brook no argument, but Penny Worms’s book The Most Important Animal of All poses what is in effect a question that is entirely, and deliberately, open to debate.

It is one of author Penny’s “star titles” and comes after 30 years of working as an editor and writer. With much of her writing work being commissioned and the role of editor being “almost like a producer putting the team together”, Penny – originally from Maidstone but now living in Tunbridge Wells – felt it was time to focus more on her own ideas.

And so, among others, The Most Important Animal of All was born. It tells how on the first day of term seven children are asked by a teacher to champion their chosen animal for the No 1 spot. At the end of term, the class is to decide which is, well, the most important of them all…

Early inspiration had come from the Earthwatch ‘Irreplaceable’ debate at the Royal Geographical Society in which five scientists competed for audience votes on which was the most invaluable species (bees won).

Of course, Penny’s commissioning experience came in useful and artist Hannah Bailey was brought in to provide the illustrations; the pair “worked together very closely after that”.

Despite being “massively interested” and wanting to “go and sit in a hide to learn about birds”, Penny is not an ecologist so pulled in Alex Morss, who is and who went through the transcript before it was sent to the British Ecological Society, where a team scrutinised it yet further.

“Luckily, the BES loved it and endorsed it,” said Penny, who in The Most Important Animal of All has written a children’s book that also offers plenty for folk of an older vintage to consume.

“There’s loads for adults to learn – that was one of the reasons I chose the animals I did. Each animal has its own ecological insight – bats, for example, are often demonised as a source of disease, but they perform an invaluable service for the wider environment.

“The selection also gave Hannah a range of diverse landscapes to work with. The book is definitely cross-generational. That’s why children’s books are brilliant – I love what some publishers are putting out there, taking us back to basics.”

So what, in the longer term, was Penny hoping to achieve with the book?
“There’s so much climate anxiety in children, I wanted to do something positive and explain why keystone species are so important for the environment,” she said.

“It’s about caring and growing up with the belief that all species are important and being aware of the need to do something to help. It’s an informative book that is both insightful and inspirational. It had children thinking critically.

“It’s gone down so well in schools. There’s a project in Yorkshire where eight schools are coming together to study the book and debate which is the most important animal – there will be about 300 youngsters joining the debate.

“I suppose this is my vision coming to life.”

  • The Most Important Animal of All is available from bookshops and online retailers, but if you would like to buy a copy (or several!), use the code CPRE on Penny’s website www.mamamakesbooks.com and £1 per copy will be donated to CPRE Kent

Petition: change the housing methodology that’s costing us greenfield land

Posted , filed under Planning
The government is using out-of-date growth projections as it pushes through its assessment of housing need

There can’t be many of us who are unaware of the government’s ‘standard methodology’ that is artificially inflating the numbers of houses to be built on greenfield sites.
Many local authorities are being forced to remove protection from large areas of countryside when in truth there is no need.
In response, a petition has been set up calling for the methodology to be changed. Entitled ‘Change the Standard Method for calculating local housing need’, campaigners state:
“We call on the Government to change the standard method for calculating local housing need. The current method uses growth projections from 2014, which we believe is out of date and more recent data should be used to calculate the baseline amount of housing needed.”

  • If you would like to sign the petition, click here   

Wednesday, May 4, 2022

Eco Expo is back! And it’s bigger and better than ever

Posted , filed under Events

Contrary to popular belief, Thanet does still have a natural environment – and on Saturday it will be celebrated at Margate’s second Eco Expo.
The event is billed as “an afternoon of collaborative discussions to further our collective eco-education” – and who wouldn’t want to be part of that?!
Speakers include Dr Hannah Scott talking on Thanet & the Climate Emergency, Peter Hasted revealing all about Thanet’s Urban Forest and Tim Craven telling us about Trees in British Art.
And there’s a whole load more than that – please do come along!

  • Eco Expo is being held at The Margate School, 31-33 High Street, Margate CT9 1DX, on Saturday, May 9, from 2pm

Thursday, May 6, 2022

The spring edition of Kent Countryside Voice is here for you to read and enjoy

Posted , filed under Media

Your unmissable, unbeatable Kent Countryside Voice is out!
Yes, you can read the spring 2022 edition here. It includes a brilliant article by CPRE planner Richard Thompson on the myth that simply building more houses will make them more affordable; a look at how archaeological innovation could help speed up the planning process; a reflection on Kent’s Day of Action; the problem of appalling light pollution from a glasshouse complex… and very much more. Please enjoy…

Wednesday, April 27, 2022

All About Solar: your chance to join free event tackling a contentious subject

Posted , filed under Energy
Solar farms can stir mixed emotions (pic Low Carbon)

It’s one of the countryside issues of our time: the spread of solar farms across our landscape.
The subject is brought into focus tomorrow (Thursday, April 21) in a webinar entitled All About Solar, during which CPRE’s own Richard Haynes will be speaking on the impact of solar farms on landscape and heritage setting.
Other speakers are Professor Michael Alder, who will give an overview of the Solar Campaign Alliance and discuss national food security and the biodiversity impact of solar farms, and Dr Edmund Fordham, who will “tell us all we need to know about battery storage”.
This free event begins at 7pm and you can get tickets here

Wednesday, April 20, 2022

Planning to fail: net zero is impossible without urgent changes to planning policy, CPRE analysis finds

Posted , filed under Environment
CPRE wants all Local Plans to demonstrate how they will deliver a reduction in private car mileage

Reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 is impossible without urgent changes to national planning policy, analysis by CPRE, the countryside charity, has found. 

A study of all 24 Local Plans outside Greater London that have been adopted since the Climate Change Act was updated in 2019 shows just one local authority has introduced a quantified, strategic-level carbon-reduction target.

No other local authority has a Plan to hit net zero. In each case, government planning inspectors have been content to sign off Plans without making tackling the climate emergency a central priority. A study of inspectors’ reports produced before plans are adopted showed an average of only one mention of ‘climate’ for 24 mentions of ‘housing’.

Housing, transport, business and industry generate 62 per cent of our carbon emissions. That is why CPRE is calling for the climate emergency to be urgently put at the heart of planning decisions so we have a realistic chance of hitting net zero by 2050.

For this to happen, the National Planning Policy Framework must be amended so that:

•          All new developments demonstrate a measurable reduction in net carbon emissions over the life of the development

•          All Plans demonstrate how they will deliver a reduction in private car mileage

•          Any plans to boost housing and employment must also be justified on the basis of the additional carbon reductions they will deliver

•          All councils must have their net-zero carbon target integrated across the Local Plan as a whole, and this should be an additional test of soundness at examination.

Planning inspectors must give as much weight to environmental targets as they do housebuilding targets. Yet national planning policy has failed to keep up with climate-change legislation, leaving ambitious carbon-reduction targets impossible to achieve.

CPRE’s research shows how national planning policy sets detailed and specific housebuilding targets, with planning inspectors regularly requiring changes to local authority plans that fall short. Conversely, climate targets are generalised, subjective and hard to enforce, with no evidence that inspectors find fault with plans on environmental grounds.

Commenting on the research, Crispin Truman, chief executive of CPRE, said:   

“We’re not going to hit net zero by accident – we need to plan for it. Unfortunately, local authorities are hamstrung by national planning policy that is woefully behind the times on this issue.

“Local Plans need to act like road maps plotting the path towards the sustainable future envisaged by the government’s climate-change legislation. The fact that they don’t come close to doing so is proof of the failure of current national planning policy.

“In terms of climate, we are planning to fail. It is impossible to hit net zero if it isn’t prioritised in Local Plans. Providing the attractive, affordable homes that people need and ensuring it is environmentally sustainable is not an either/or trade-off. We need to do both at the same time and with the same level of commitment.

“Worryingly, CPRE’s research has found clear-cut evidence that planning inspectors routinely force local authorities to adopt housebuilding targets with no attempt to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Worse still, there is no evidence of any serious effort to reduce car journeys – new developments are frequently planned on the edges of towns with no requirements to provide better public transport or cycle lanes to reduce road journeys.

“We found not a single example of planning inspectors demanding changes to Plans to ensure they reduce carbon emissions. This was in sharp contrast to how Local Plans must itemise and quantify how they will meet housing needs. Both objectives are important, but there is a stark difference in emphasis. It’s time for a revitalised, net-zero-focused planning system to increase biodiversity, enhance the countryside’s ability to soak up carbon and create sustainable places to live.”

Changing how places work to make them a lot less energy-hungry is a crucial step on the road to net zero – and the planning system is the means to do it. Local Plans need to radically reduce public dependence on car travel, including the introduction of thriving ‘20-minute neighbourhoods’ that place housing, amenities and workplaces within walking distance of each other.

Industrial and commercial developments could be permitted on the condition they install solar panels, helping create a modern network of rooftop renewable energy that would reduce pressure on the countryside.

A renewed ‘brownfield first’ approach would redevelop land and buildings in the heart of communities where housing is most needed, retaining and reusing the embodied carbon.

Monday, April 4, 2022