Responding to today's Budget statement CPRE condemned the Chancellor's rhetoric on planning as misguided and dangerous. The group also expressed deep concerns about the Government’s transport strategy and the suggestion that it is going soft on airport expansion in the South East.

Planning

Adam Royle, spokesman for CPRE, says: “We heard yet more of the Chancellor's misguided and dangerous rhetoric on planning today. If the Government undermines sound planning, it will put sustainable economic growth at risk. Countries like Germany show that good economic performance and strong planning systems can go hand in hand.

“We will have to wait until next Tuesday when the final planning framework is to be published to see if the voices of reason in Government will yet win out.

“From the Chancellor's words we fear the longstanding protection for the wider countryside will be abandoned. That would mean that 55% of English countryside, including many locally loved green spaces, could be placed at the mercy of developers.

“Also extremely worrying is the suggestion that communities may not be given any time to ensure their local plans conform to the new framework . This could leave more then one third of areas that don't currently have a plan exposed to a crude ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’.

“On the basis of the budget statement, the Government's promise that the planning reforms are about empowering local people looks very hollow indeed.”

Transport

Ralph Smyth, Senior Transport Campaigner at CPRE, Says: “The Government seems to be attempting to disguise a major u-turn on South East airport expansion as an economic aside. After responding to public opinion by pulling the plug on a third runway at Heathrow, the Government needs to hold its nerve against the turbulence of vociferous lobbying of the aviation industry.

“'Smart hubbing' through better allocation of runway slots would provide all the additional passenger capacity needed, and avoid untold damage to the countryside including further loss of the little rural tranquillity that remains in the South East of England.

“This is not a case of ‘jobs versus the countryside’ or ‘runways versus rural England’, but about tackling narrow minded and short sighted vested interests.”

end

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) urges Ministers not to forget rural services, following the publication today of the Reforming our Railways Command Paper by Transport Secretary Justine Greening [1].

Ralph Smyth, Senior Transport Officer for CPRE, says: "Justine Greening is heading in the right direction with her rail reforms, but she needs to show the same level of ambition for our rural railways as she has for long distance and urban services.

“Where there has been investment and innovation in rural railways, such as through community rail partnerships, they have grown. Government says it needs to step back more. But actually it needs to step in, for example to require different transport operators to offer integrated travelcards across local authority boundaries. If bus and train companies want to keep receiving subsidy and should be prepared to give more in return.

“Travelcards then Oyster cards have transformed travel in London because of the price cap that lets you pay a maximum fixed amount no matter how many modes of transport you use. People in rural areas deserve integrated ticketing across borders and transport modes as much as people in urban areas. But the Government's focus in city-regions means country dwellers are being left out of the picture.

“In other countries such as Germany, more people make trips using travelcards. This gives operators a more constant funding stream and provides the public with a ‘win-win’ of more services and lower subsidies [2].”

End

Notes to Editors
[1] Department of Transport, ‘Reforming our railways: Putting the customer first’, 08 March 2012, http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/reforming-our-railways/
[2] For example, the local rail network around the ‘eco-city’ of Freiburg in south west
Germany has seen passengers increase from 1.5 million in 1999 to 7.3 million in 2009 through a combination of micro-franchising and creation of regional travelcard. 
More info: www.cpre.org.uk/resources/transport/rail/item/1869-reforming-rail-franchising

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) welcomes the Government's commitment to invest in rail rather than seeking to promote new roads or air travel.  But there is a long way to go before we can be sure that High Speed 2 (HS2) will not have an unacceptable impact on the landscape and local communities.

Secretary for State for Transport, Justine Greening, has today announced that HS2 will proceed, with some welcome changes to the proposed route, with more tunnelling and mitigation, and a commitment to further local consultation [1].

Shaun Spiers, CPRE Chief Executive, says: “We are pleased the Government has shown its commitment to Britain’s railways while being sensitive to the impact that HS2 will have on communities and the countryside. 

“It appears that Ministers really have engaged with the consultation responses.  So we welcome the changes that have been announced, notably the further tunnelling in the Chilterns and alterations to the route to avoid important heritage sites. Justine Greening is right that in delivering this important scheme we must safeguard the natural environment and our beautiful countryside.

“Today's announcement is just one step in a very long process. There is still much more work to be done.  The route proposed today requires detailed study and it is likely that further changes will need to be made.  In particular, CPRE would like to see flexibility on the maximum design speed to allow more sensitive routing with greater curvature of the track. This will allow for necessary alterations following further local consultation.

“But the Government deserves congratulation for showing commitment to the future of our railways and to addressing regional economic imbalances, rather than concentrating development in the south east.  We are particularly pleased that this appears to have been a genuine consultation and that legitimate concerns about the likely impact of HS2 on the landscape have been heard. 

“CPRE has branches and member parish councils across the country and we will continue to engage closely with the Government and HS2 Ltd to ensure that the new railway is as environmentally sensitive and beneficial to local communities as possible.”

End

Click here to find out more about CPRE's extensive work and research on HS2

Notes to Editors
[1] DfT, 10 January 2011 http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/statements/greening-20120110
[2] In announcing next steps the Government has confirmed it will implement an 'engagement programme' along the London to Birmingham route on Environmental Impact Assessment issues in spring of this year and consult on an Environmental Statement for phase 1 in spring 2013.

A new report shows that, contrary to Government forecasts, High Speed 2 (HS2) could in fact cut carbon emissions, but only if specific policies are put in place.

The interim report on The Carbon Impacts of HS2 discovered that far from being carbon neutral, the proposed new high-speed railway line between London and the West Midlands has the potential to actually reduce UK carbon emissions.

The report, the result of research carried out by Greengauge 21 and commissioned by Campaign for Better Transport, Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), examined all the factors which will affect the carbon impact of high speed rail and identifies several areas which will have the greatest influence:

• how electricity in future is generated, for instance, how much comes from renewable sources
• how transport and land use planning are integrated, in particular where new stations are sited
• how successful HS2 is in attracting passengers from other modes of transport
• how much capacity HS2 frees up on existing lines in order to accommodate more freight
• how HS2 might be operated, in particular its service patterns and normal operating speed, which could be more important that its top speed
• Jim Steer of Greengauge 21 said: “We need to move beyond the will it, won’t it level of debate about the carbon impact of HS2. Our research has looked at a wide range of factors that might affect the carbon case for HS2 and discovered the impacts are complex and inter-related. But if the detailed planning is done properly, HS2 should make a positive contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

Ralph Smyth, CPRE, said: “Integrating land use and transport planning will be of critical importance if high-speed rail is to cut carbon. Well sited high-speed rail stations could stimulate brownfield regeneration and create attractive, walkable neighbourhoods.”

Stephen Joseph, Campaign for Better Transport’s chief executive, said: “The Government view is that HS2 is neutral in carbon terms, but this does not take account of the impact on the rest of the rail network. The West Coast Main Line is a very busy mixed use railway and if capacity for better rail services is freed up by HS2, mode shift from road to rail could – if combined with other policies – result in big carbon reductions, especially in freight and in medium distance commuting and business travel.”

Melanie Coath, RSPB, said: “Climate change poses the greatest long term threat to wildlife so we need transport systems that help us deliver a low carbon economy. A robust analysis of the carbon impacts of HS2 will help us understand the role high-speed rail might play compared to other modes of transport.”

The report is an interim document ahead of the full results of the research, which will be published in 2012. In the next phase of the study will examine the knock-on effects on other modes of transport, examining for the first time the carbon impacts of freeing up capacity on existing railways for more rail freight or local passenger services, and identify the policy measures that will have the most impact on the carbon emissions for high speed rail.

Ends

Notes to Editors

1. The research study, The Carbon Impacts of HS2, is being carried out by Greengauge 21, a not-for-profit research organisation on high-speed rail. Greengauge 21 has in turn commissioned various experts in the environmental and transport fields and coordinated the research programme.
2. The Carbon Impacts of HS2 was commissioned by Campaign for Better Transport, Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). The groups are all signatories of the The Right Lines Charter, which was launched in April 2011 and which ten other organisations have now signed up to. It sets out four principles for 'doing High Speed Rail well', including highlighting the need for high-speed rail to be planned and justified as a strategic element of a sustainable, near zero carbon transport system.
3. The Carbon Impacts of HS2 is sponsored by Siemens, Systra and the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC).
4. The interim report will be available on the Greengauge 21 website (www.greengauge21.net/publications) from 00:01 Friday 2 December 2011.

Supporting technical reports to the main interim report will be available on the Greengauge 21 website:

• An analysis of the environmental, transport, energy and other policy issues that will influence the carbon case for HS2, commissioned from Dr Ian Skinner of Transport and Environmental Policy Research (TEPR)

• An analysis of the energy consumption and carbon performance of high-speed trains and how this varies according to speed, rolling stock design, operating practices and infrastructure configuration. This analysis was carried out by SYSTRA

Countryside campaigners have welcomed the Transport Select Committee’s much anticipated report into High Speed 2 (HS2) [1]. The report supports arguments made by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) that the current proposals give ‘undue emphasis’ to the need for a world record speed of 250mph [2].

Ralph Smyth, Senior Transport Campaigner for CPRE, says: “We agree with the Committee on the need to proceed with High Speed Rail but to proceed with caution. The question now, is how High Speed Rail should be delivered - not if.

“We are delighted the report shares CPRE’s view that the Government urgently needs to set out an overall transport strategy and properly assess its proposals for HS2 within the wider context. This needs to happen before it proceeds any further with specific proposals.”

The report criticises the tone of the public debate, calling for both sides to stop disparaging the opposite side and instead focus on facts (paragraph 89). Smyth agreed adding:

“It’s time for those who think HS2 is either the best thing since sliced bread or simply a white elephant to stop shouting everyone else out of the debate. Punch and Judy politics will not deliver the best from HS2 for our economy, society or the environment [3].

“The Government is expected to announce it will proceed with HS2 this December and the precise route for the first section to the Midlands. When and if it does, we need to ensure HS2 is accompanied by wider planning to maximise the long term benefits for the environment and economy.”

End

Notes to Editors
[1] House of Commons Transport Select Committee, ‘High Speed Rail’, 08 November 2011

The report follows eight months of evidence taking from a wide range of organisations.  Further information about the report can be obtained from the Committee’s press officer, Hannah Pearce, 020 7219 8430, 07917 488162, email: pearcehm@parliament.uk

[2] Paragraphs 67 to 69.

[3] At the launch on the public consultation on HS2, CPRE described the debate as a Punch and Judy show:
www.cpre.org.uk/media-centre/latest-news-releases/item/797-charity-labels-new-high-speed-2-consultation-a-train-wreck

Since then CPRE led the formation of the Right Lines Charter for doing High Speed Rail well. The Charter brings together twelve other NGOs covering environment, heritage, transport and community interests. More information is at: www.rightlines.org.uk

This document is CPRE's consultation response to the Department for Transport's consultation on High Speed Rail that ended in July 2011. CPRE welcomes the Government’s ambition to make rail the longer distance transport mode of choice. We support the principle of High Speed 2 between London and the Midlands as part of the step change in rail capacity that would be needed to achieve this. However, we consider the current proposals and process by which they have been drawn up and are being consulted on to be flawed in a number of respects. In particular there is no broader national transport strategy to judge the proposals against.

A powerful alliance of respected organisations has agreed a Charter [1] that will hold the Government to account on its approach to High Speed Rail [2]. The Right Lines Charter, which is published today [Thursday], sets out four core principles ‘for doing High Speed Rail well’.

The Charter calls for a national transport strategy, better future-proofing of big transport proposals, effective public participation and a more strategic approach to minimising adverse impacts. Its supporters seek to engage positively with the Government, as they believe the approach to High Speed Rail currently falls well short of the Charter's principles.

Many groups commenting publicly on High Speed Rail to date have represented either people living along the proposed route or businesses and cities that could profit from it. Today’s Charter draws together for the first time many well known national charities, covering environmental, heritage, countryside, legal and wildlife issues, in addition to other organisations. It seeks to achieve the best long-term outcome from high speed rail for the country, the climate, communities and the countryside.

Leading representatives of each organisation [3] have made the following comments as to how the Government should react to the Charter’s principles:

Campaign to Protect Rural England
Shaun Spiers, Chief Executive, said: “It is understandable that those who would benefit or lose from the proposals want to be cheerleaders or gravediggers for High Speed Rail. The Government needs to be listening rather than shouting encouragement at one side. A new high speed line can help provide the extra rail capacity the country needs, but the current HS2 route would cause unacceptable damage to the beauty and tranquillity of much-loved countryside. The Government must consult properly and show that it is prepared to listen to legitimate concerns.”

Campaign for Better Transport
Stephen Joseph, Chief Executive, said: “High speed rail needs to be part of a broader policy to reduce road and air traffic, with extra rail capacity to improve people’s travel choices and to get freight off the roads. Only if there is this broader policy can the full impacts of high speed rail be assessed properly.”

Civic Voice
Tony Burton, Director, said “Major development projects like High Speed Rail can be intimidating for local communities and need to demonstrate a real sensitivity to the people and places they affect. People should have meaningful influence over key decisions – such as the design speed of the line – if we are to avoid unnecessary damage to intimate townscapes and landscapes and reap the benefits of investment in rail.”

Environmental Law Foundation
Debbie Tripley, Chief Executive, said “There is always a tipping point when major projects like High Speed 2 (HS2) become controversial and that is when people see that there is a lack of fairness in the decision making process. The Aarhus Convention requires the public to be consulted when all options are open and effective participation can take place. The public should be given the opportunity to participate on all aspects of the HS2 project and to have a real say on all the issues, both environmental and strategic. “

Friends of the Earth
Andy Atkins, Executive Director, said: “Carbon emissions from UK transport must be urgently cut – but the current High Speed Rail proposals will do little, if anything, to help.The majority of journeys are relatively short, so the Government’s top priority should be to cut emissions from these trips. This means action to encourage greener travel and measures to reduce the need to travel for work or essential services."

Greenpeace UK
Doug Parr, Policy Director, said: “Tackling transport emissions means an increase in rail capacity. High speed rail can only help if it’s in a proper policy framework which ensures people move from car and plane onto the train.”

RSPB
Mark Avery, Director of Conservation, said: "A switch to rail is critical if our future transport system is going to be green and clean. But the environmental benefits won't materialise on their own. Government must demonstrate how High Speed 2 plans will respect nature, minimise damage to important wildlife sites, and help us in the fight against climate change."‪

The Wildlife Trusts
Paul Wilkinson, Head of Living Landscape, said: “As it stands, HS2 is on track to deliver a damaged natural environment. We need efficient and sustainable transport systems but they must not be achieved at the expense of the environment. The proposed HS2 route will have a detrimental impact by dissecting and fragmenting the landscape and threatening important wildlife sites and undermining action to support nature’s recovery.”

Woodland Trust
Nikki Williams, Head of Campaigning, said "Although we support moves towards green transport, the proposed route would destroy or irrevocably damage ancient woodland, the UK's richest wildlife habitat that is literally irreplaceable. Government plans to compensate by planting 2 million trees will not recompense this loss of our rarest habitats. Environmental impact should be valued equally with journey times and costs when assessing new transport options.”

Chiltern Society
Mike Overall, Vice-Chairman, said: “The current HS2 proposals stem from a badly conceived and highly constrained remit, resulting in little regard being given to options that would avoid harming some of England’s finest landscapes. A wholly objective balancing between the wider economic benefits claimed for High Speed Rail and the impact of specific proposals on the environment can not be achieved in the absence of a comprehensive framework of national transportation strategies that address broader future sustainability issues.”

Ends

Notes to Editors
[1] Copies of the High Speed Rail Charter can be downloaded here: The Right Lines – Charter for High Speed Rail
[2] The Government launched its High Speed Rail consultation on 28 February and it runs to 29 July. Full details are available at: http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/
[3] The following organisations support the Charter: Campaign for Better Transport, Campaign to Protect Rural England, Chiltern Society, Civic Voice, Environmental Law Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace UK, RSPB, The Wildlife Trusts, Woodland Trust. These organisations are individually bound by their specific charitable and constitutional objectives and will want separately to emphasise their own particular priorities through the consultation process. There is, however, sufficient common ground between them to create a powerful joint approach on a range of fundamental issues.

Countryside campaigners claimed Rural England was the big loser in the Government’s new road safety framework published today (Wednesday) [1]. The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is calling for an urgent rethink to tackle rural road safety.

Ralph Smyth, Senior Transport Campaigner at the CPRE, said: “Most road deaths happen on rural roads but alarmingly the Government’s new road safety plan fails to mention the word ‘rural’ once. The Government has committed to providing better guidance for urban but not for rural roads. If we are to make rural roads safer, we need a clear national framework for all roads so that neighbouring councils can work together coherently.”

Three-quarters of car occupant deaths happen on rural roads, while the risk for cycling is three times higher than in urban areas [2]. The Department for Transport’s 2009 consultation document said that ‘the rural roads problem…appears to be a fundamental weakness in our road safety system’ but then proposed little to solve this [3].

As a result CPRE launched a campaign that meant over half the public responses to the 2009 consultation pressed for action on rural road safety. CPRE is calling for better guidance to end ‘speed limit lotteries’ where drivers are confused by widely varying speed limits between neighbouring councils.

CPRE is also asking for legal changes to allow councils to introduce 40mph zones on networks of minor country roads. We should learn the lessons of the successful introduction of 60kmph zones in rural areas of the Netherlands, as part of that country’s systematic strategy to make all its roads easier to understand and safer for all road users.

Ralph Smyth concluded: “The long awaited new strategy has proposed no solution to the rural roads problem. Indeed, in a break with the previous road safety strategies it has removed any reference to rural areas.  This is frankly alarming. Ministers have not managed to find time to meet CPRE to discuss rural road safety issues despite our repeated requests. As the summer months approach, we hope there can be a ray of sunshine for rather than more tragedies on our country lanes.”

Ends

Notes to Editors
[1] On Wednesday 11 May 2011 the Government published its Strategic Framework for Road Safety, which is available at: www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/strategicframework
[2] The first figure comes from paragraph 5.4 of A Safer Way: Consultation on making Britain's Roads the Safest in the World. The cycling figure comes from a 2001 research report that influenced the consultation. The former is available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/roadsafetyconsultation/
[3]  Paragraphs 5.5 to 5.6 in A Safer Way.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) fights for a better future for the English countryside. We work locally and nationally to protect, shape and enhance a beautiful, thriving countryside for everyone to value and enjoy. Our 57,000 members are united in their love for England’s landscapes and rural communities, and stand up for the countryside, so it can continue to sustain, enchant and inspire future generations. Founded in 1926, President: Bill Bryson, Patron: Her Majesty The Queen. www.cpre.org.uk

Countryside campaigners (CPRE) [1] are calling for one of England’s iconic landscapes to be saved from a highly damaging road scheme.

The route of the proposed A350 Westbury Eastern Bypass in Wiltshire is set to cut through the protected landscape [2] below the famous Westbury white horse [3].

Despite fierce local opposition and the fact the road scheme is not included in the recently recommended transport projects for the South West region, Wiltshire County Council seems determined to press ahead.

‘It is incredible that the county council wants to push forward this intrusive and damaging scheme. It would have a major impact on an historic landscape,’ said Laura Jansen, Senior Campaigner at CPRE.

‘It does not say much for the scheme that it was not even included in the list of 80 transport schemes for the South West that a panel of inspectors wanted to see progressed [4]. Why should such a precious landscape have to be damaged by what is clearly not a key priority for the region?,’ she concluded.

Campaigners want to see the county council switch to a more appropriate solution to the west of Westbury [5]. This would not only mean no large bypass, it would also connect up with local public transport links.

The Westbury Eastern Bypass is going to a public inquiry later this year where campaigners will continue to fight for an outcome that will protect this iconic landscape.

– END –

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. CPRE, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, is a charity which promotes the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of rural England. We advocate positive solutions for the long-term future of the countryside. Founded in 1926, we have 60,000 supporters and a branch in every county. President: Bill Bryson. Patron: Her Majesty The Queen. www.cpre.org.uk

2. The road would be intrusive and visible for some miles as it would run along the scarp slope of the Salisbury Plain and past the Westbury White Horse. The road would affect 13 species of bat, all of which have European protection, with four having the highest level of protection in Europe (Annexe 2 of the European Habitat Directive 1992). The bypass would also affect dormice (which also have the highest level of protection in Europe), water voles, great crested newts, barn owls, badgers, and a number of British Trust for Ornithology red listed nesting birds. The number of species affected by the scheme is not surprising as the road would go through the tranquil Wellhead Valley on the western edge of Salisbury Plain, near two Sites of Special Scientific Interest and very close to other places known to be ecologically rich.

3. This is the oldest of Wiltshire’s 12 white horse chalk hill figures.

4. The panel of inspectors that examined the draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West called for key policies and projects to be reviewed. This Panel Report listed more than 80 transport schemes the inspectors wanted to see progressed. The A350 Westbury eastern bypass was not among them.

5. An alternative route on the western side of Westbury could serve the trading estates and the railway station. Such a route would link with the proposed multi-modal railfreight terminal and provide better bus links across the area. This would provide a better solution to relieving a number of villages, as well as Westbury itself, from lorries. However a Western route has been dismissed by Wiltshire County Council on the grounds that it would be more expensive to construct and therefore less likely to obtain government funding.

‘Today’s Budget does not go quite far enough to make the Chancellor the Darling of the countryside, but it contains some encouraging measures. We hope it marks the first step on the path to a greener economy.’

This was the reaction of CPRE’s [1] Head of Campaigns, Ben Stafford, to today’s Budget statement by the Chancellor, Alistair Darling.

TRANSPORT

Ben Stafford said:

‘The major disappointment today is that much of what Mr Darling said about transport policy doesn’t live up to the pre-Budget environmental spin. The Budget statement contains little to suggest that the Chancellor has abandoned the “ostrich approach” to aviation policy, hoping that its climate change impacts might go away if they are ignored.’

On road transport, Mr Darling is sending confusing signals. The promise of funding to examine road-pricing proposals is encouraging, but the Chancellor’s hope that technology will deliver significant cuts in emissions from road transport looks wildly optimistic.

Ben Stafford said:

‘Reforms to Vehicle Excise Duty to encourage people to buy more efficient cars are all very well, but no substitute for demand management. Mr Darling should have had the courage to raise fuel duty now, with revenues going to improve public transport. Reduced car use would be good for climate change, and would reduce pressure for new road-building that damages our countryside.’

HOUSING

Mr Darling devoted a significant passage in his Budget speech to the need for housing market stability. Ben Stafford said:

‘We welcome the Chancellor’s support for affordable housing, but the Government must address this challenge in rural as well as urban areas. So the funding pledged for new, affordable and social housing is the right approach. We hope to see more of this, and less of the view expressed elsewhere by Mr Darling that simply building more and more houses will deliver affordability.’

PLASTIC BAGS

A bold and eye-catching Budget initiative is the announcement that, unless there is sufficient progress by retailers to cut the use of single-use plastic bags voluntarily, legislation to impose a charge on their use will come into force next year. Litter despoils our towns and countryside, and the tide of plastic bags is a depressingly familiar part of the problem.

Ben Stafford concluded:

‘With limited signs that a voluntary approach to tackling the blight of plastic bags will work, the Government is right to flag more robust measures through this Budget. Litter is a highly visible problem that suggests a lack of concern for the state of our towns and countryside. The Government is showing today that it can take a lead in addressing these issues, although it must make sure that “sufficient progress” in tackling plastic bags really is sufficient, and fulfil its promise to legislate if not.’

– END –

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. CPRE, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, is a charity which promotes the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of rural England. We advocate positive solutions for the long-term future of the countryside. Founded in 1926, we have 60,000 supporters and a branch in every county. President: Bill Bryson. Patron: Her Majesty The Queen. www.cpre.org.uk