Bexley Natural Environment Forum has today submitted to the Council a series of proposals for moving decisively towards true sustainability, instead of Bexley’s negative and irrational prospectus of a sustained and never-ending growth in resource consumption and concrete that can only degrade the wider environment further.
The Forum says that Bexley’s pro-‘growth’ document is stuck in a 20th century world view and promotes wholly the wrong direction of travel, with no consideration being given to addressing water, food or energy limitations and security in a properly environmentally sensitive way, including by significant demand reduction, all matters on which London is vulnerable.
Response author Chris Rose, Vice-chair of the Forum, said “This document says it all about the Council’s actual concerns – or lack of them- cut Bexley’s priorities to a three page summary, and wildlife and the environment disappear, which pretty much tallies with the low priority and subservient status given to these matters in the major strategic planning documents. It obviously doesn’t understand that the economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the environment and not the other way around. We have written to the Council separately asking how the housing allocations figure agreed in a public consultation, approved by HM Inspectorate and published in the Local Development Framework only two and a half years ago, has jumped fivefold to 22,000 in this new publication. We are also extremely concerned about the pro-bridges bias in the questions, another matter on which the Council has shifted position with no credible explanation”.
BNEF encourages concerned residents to send in comments. The Council needs to feel some heat on this. A copy of BNEF’s submission is here, and may give you ideas of your own:
The deadline for submissions, which should be sent to
is Friday 5th September.
The original Council offering is at:
BNEF has reminded the Council that the UK Government has signed an international agreement to take steps to achieve or to have implemented plans for sustainable production and consumption and to have kept the impacts of use of natural resources well within safe ecological limits by 2020. In contrast, the Council clearly wishes to help ‘grow’ the country’s resource footprint yet further beyond its existing three planet lifestyle, with severe consequences for future generations and other species.