The plans for the Brent Cross Cricklewood development are full of
utter 'greenwash', seeking to create a false impression about the
environmental sustainability of this multi-billion pound project.
For a start, these plans should be thrown out completely unless the
development partners pledge to make the whole site carbon neutral.
The proposed buildings are likely to exist for several decades at
least and there is no way whatsoever that the British government will
achieve its aim of a 60 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by
2050 if concrete giants like the Brent Cross shopping centre are still
belching out carbon dioxide from heating, lighting and air
conditioning.
This scheme is an ideal opportunity to install energy conservation
measures and sustainable power facilities right from the beginning.
There is plenty of scope on the site for enough wind turbines, solar
arrays and ground source heat pumps to make the whole area carbon
positive, never mind carbon neutral.
So why aren't they doing it? As well as benefitting the environment,
carbon neutrality would save money for the people who live in the new
town and for the businesses, as their energy bills would be much lower
– they might even make money by feeding electricity back into the
grid.
Can it be that the developers are more interested in building cheaply
than in saving on running costs for the future occupants of the homes
and commercial buildings?
Secondly, at a time when neighbourhood shopping areas are under threat
all over London from post office closure, cut backs to libraries and
the marginal viability of many small shops and pubs, Barnet Council
should be studying the likely impact of Brent Cross Cricklewood on
other shopping areas in the borough.
For make no mistake, the scheme is not just about new housing and a
so-called town centre, the whole thing is based on "an expanded and
improved shopping centre", with an "enhanced retail offer including
new stores at Brent Cross Shopping Centre", to cite the developers'
own documents.
When the council has assessed the likely impact, it should order the
developers to pay whatever it costs to ensure the sustainability of
Hendon, Golders Green and the other nearby centres: better street
layouts, improved public transport, more greenery, more public
toilets, more benches to rest on or whatever it takes to ensure that
these neighbourhood areas remain available and attractive for local
residents to use.
Council Leader Mike Freer cannot genuinely oppose post office closures
and support sustainable communities at the same time as he is praising
the Brent Cross Cricklewood plans.
As for the transport issues surrounding the new plans, of course there
should be a direct rail link to the expanded shopping centre rather
than more car parking. The developers say they expect cars still to be
the main way that people get there but why is that? People will no
doubt continue to want to shop at Brent Cross but why should they
necessarily go by car? Do people go to Oxford Street by car? Of course
not, because it is properly served by London Underground lines and by
buses.
Monday 31 March 2008
Wednesday 26 March 2008
Save our Post Offices
The threat to shut eight post offices in Barnet borough as part of the planned closure of 171 branches in the London region strikes a blow to the very heart of the Green Party's concept of sustainable communities.
The government should widen the range of official business which can be carried out through post offices, to make them more sustainable.
Post Office Ltd should sharply lower its estimate of what is a reasonable distance for people to walk to a post office, since its current unreasonable limit is being used to justify many of the closures.
Barnet Council should be looking at new ways of keeping its local Post Offices open, as Essex County Council and many other authorities are doing.
We ourselves should be writing to Post Office Ltd to oppose the closure of our local branches and to challenge its individual justifications for shutting each of them.
The eight local branches scheduled for closure are:
Dollis Valley Way, Barnet
Potters Road, Barnet
Cricklewood Lane, Cricklewood
Pennine Parade, Cricklewood
East End Road, East Finchley
High Road, North Finchley
Nether Street, West Finchley
Watford Way, Hendon
to send a protest e-mail direct to Post Office Ltd go to:
http://www.postoffice.co.uk/portal/po/content1?catId=57600693&mediaId=66300707
Other parties are jumping on the protest bandwagon but the Green Party has always campaigned for the provision of key services such as post offices, libraries and schools within easy walking distance of everyone's home.
The government should widen the range of official business which can be carried out through post offices, to make them more sustainable.
Post Office Ltd should sharply lower its estimate of what is a reasonable distance for people to walk to a post office, since its current unreasonable limit is being used to justify many of the closures.
Barnet Council should be looking at new ways of keeping its local Post Offices open, as Essex County Council and many other authorities are doing.
We ourselves should be writing to Post Office Ltd to oppose the closure of our local branches and to challenge its individual justifications for shutting each of them.
The eight local branches scheduled for closure are:
Dollis Valley Way, Barnet
Potters Road, Barnet
Cricklewood Lane, Cricklewood
Pennine Parade, Cricklewood
East End Road, East Finchley
High Road, North Finchley
Nether Street, West Finchley
Watford Way, Hendon
to send a protest e-mail direct to Post Office Ltd go to:
http://www.postoffice.co.uk
Other parties are jumping on the protest bandwagon but the Green Party has always campaigned for the provision of key services such as post offices, libraries and schools within easy walking distance of everyone's home.
Stadium rot - Brown and Sarkozy's nuclear nonsense
Gordon Brown and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France plan to launch a joint nuclear power programme when they meet at Arsenal's Emirates Stadium today (Thursday 27th Feb) for a Franco-British summit.
Fortunately, Trent Park and Totteridge Fields are safe. There is no prospect whatsoever of a nuclear power station being built in the Barnet or Enfield areas because local rivers like the Lee or Dollis don't have the vast amounts of water that these megaliths require.
The problem is that hardly anywhere else in Britain is suitable for nuclear power plants either, even in the unlikely event of local residents raising no objection.
The government thinks the best places for new nuclear power stations in England are next to existing ones at Sizewell in Suffolk, Dungeness in Kent, Hinkley Point in Somerset and Bradwell in Essex.
However, the four sites are on the coast and owner British Energy admits that all of them require new flood defences to protect them from rising sea levels.
This risk from erosion is just one of a dozen or more reasons why the Green Party thinks the many billions of pounds which new nuclear power plants would cost could be much better spent on energy conservation and developing sustainable energy sources such as wind, solar and marine power.
To cite just one of the other objections, Britain would have to import all the uranium to fuel new reactors, in the absence of any known deposits in this country.
This would put Britain's energy security at risk, especially as some of the biggest uranium mines are in Kazakhstan and Niger, from where it would be hard to guarantee supplies.
Maybe after all someone should run a geiger counter over Trent Park and Totteridge Fields in case there is a lode of uranium underneath... just kidding.
Fortunately, Trent Park and Totteridge Fields are safe. There is no prospect whatsoever of a nuclear power station being built in the Barnet or Enfield areas because local rivers like the Lee or Dollis don't have the vast amounts of water that these megaliths require.
The problem is that hardly anywhere else in Britain is suitable for nuclear power plants either, even in the unlikely event of local residents raising no objection.
The government thinks the best places for new nuclear power stations in England are next to existing ones at Sizewell in Suffolk, Dungeness in Kent, Hinkley Point in Somerset and Bradwell in Essex.
However, the four sites are on the coast and owner British Energy admits that all of them require new flood defences to protect them from rising sea levels.
This risk from erosion is just one of a dozen or more reasons why the Green Party thinks the many billions of pounds which new nuclear power plants would cost could be much better spent on energy conservation and developing sustainable energy sources such as wind, solar and marine power.
To cite just one of the other objections, Britain would have to import all the uranium to fuel new reactors, in the absence of any known deposits in this country.
This would put Britain's energy security at risk, especially as some of the biggest uranium mines are in Kazakhstan and Niger, from where it would be hard to guarantee supplies.
Maybe after all someone should run a geiger counter over Trent Park and Totteridge Fields in case there is a lode of uranium underneath... just kidding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)