Is this the greenest government ever?

---

A leading conservation charity has claimed that David Cameron's vow to lead the "greenest government ever" will be hard to justify, if the coalition's attack on environmental regulation continues.

One of the biggest news stories of the parliamentary year was the furore over the government's decision to sell off parts of the public forest estate. Was the CPRE actively involved in the campaign against this policy and what was your reaction to the eventual u-turn?

CPRE did have serious concerns about the government's proposals for the remaining public forest estate and a number of our branches, including those in the Lake District and Gloucestershire (particularly in the Forest of Dean), were actively involved in campaigning against the proposals. A number of the branches also supported the 38 Degrees petition that opposed the sales and gathered more than 500,000 signatures.

Nationally, we didn't feel the key issue was ownership per se. The reason for that is that only 18 per cent of England's woods are in state ownership now and there are other forms of public ownership, for example by environmental charities, that can be positive.

So we didn't feel that ownership was the absolutely critical issue, but we did feel that the government needed to give much stronger guarantees on how, if the ownership of currently state-owned woods was to change, it would ensure that there was continuing public benefit from things such as access, bio-diversity, conservation and the maintenance of tranquillity. We think that those public benefits from our woodland should actually be enhanced, not just maintained at their current level, and we weren't clear on how this would happen if those woodlands were sold off.

We didn't really think the government had provided adequate answers to those questions by the time it withdrew the consultation. So nationally, as well as in our branches, we thought that ending the consultation and referring the matter to an independent panel was the right decision.

We have recently responded to the panel's call for views that closed a couple of weeks ago – and there we've said again that, although we don't think ownership needs to be the primary issue, we do need to get a lot more out of England's woods and forests, in terms of their public benefits, and there should also be an aim that more of England should be wooded.

It seems that a lot of the debate has been about 'what do we do with the existing forests', rather than focusing on the fact that we are a pretty un-wooded country compared to the rest of Europe. Shouldn't we be saying we need more trees and woods?

We also think that heritage forests such as the Forest of Dean should remain in public ownership, whatever else the government decide to do. We are now waiting with interest to see what the panel says in its interim report in the autumn, and we expect there will be a full recommendation to ministers next year.

What are the CPRE's thoughts on the natural environment white paper, published in June?

I think we are generally positive about the natural environment white paper. It was a key commitment from the government on the environment; they have delivered it early in this Parliament, and of course it is the first such white paper in 20 years. We think it is pretty significant and we welcome a lot of what's in it.

There is the commitment to begin taking forward the recommendations of Sir John Lawton's 'Making Space for Nature' report by establishing nature improvement areas for landscape conservation and restoration of the natural environment. There is support in there for action on litter, which is a big campaign for CPRE. The white paper has said the government will support the 'Love where you Live' campaign and also that it will back volunteer action on litter. There are proposals for more action on light pollution and there is also some positive language on the environmental role of planning, which ironically is rather stronger than what has subsequently appeared in the national planning policy framework.

Whilst there are lots of positives, there are also three key tests for whether the white paper will be a success: leadership, planning policy and money.

On leadership, I would say that, whilst we welcome the work the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has done on this paper, we need to see the whole of government, from the very top down, working to ensure commitments are delivered. It's no good it just being a Defra white paper; although there are lots of commitments from other departments in there, we want to see them actually happening and being backed up by other departments.

On planning policy, we don't believe that many of the aspirations of the white paper will be achievable if, at the same time, the government is relaxing planning to make development easier. There is a particular role there for Defra and the Department for Communities and Local Government to work together better.

On money, I think there are questions as to whether the very small amounts of money allocated are enough to make major improvements in the natural environment a reality.

We recognise that agri-environment money has a role to play and so we are very pleased with, and have applauded the government for, its increase in higher-level stewardship funding in the spending review announcements last year. We know that public money is pretty scarce at the moment, but we would like to see a commitment from ministers that they will allocate more money for protecting and enhancing the natural environment as economic conditions improve.

If the natural environment white paper is a vision for the next 20 or 30 years, then it shouldn't just be shaped by the current difficult economic climate that we are in. It should be saying that in the longer term, when the economy is recovering, this is how we will prioritise spending on the natural environment.

As a champion of the countryside, what steps has the CPRE taken to raise awareness about the potential dangers to rural communities posed by High Speed Rail?

We have come together with an alliance of different groups that includes the RSPB, the Wildlife Trusts, the Campaign for Better Transport and the Chiltern Society to produce something called 'The Right Lines Charter', which sets out four core principles for doing high-speed rail well.

These first of these principles is that there should be a national transport strategy, which would be a framework within which high-speed rail would sit. We don't believe that is currently there. We also think that strategy should include ideas for how we reduce the amount that we travel and reduce emissions from travel.

Secondly, we think there should be better future-proofing of big transport proposals, measuring things like their impact on landscapes and not just their economic impact.

We also think there needs to be effective participation: there is a lot of interest, both along the line of route of High Speed Two and also from other parts of the country, and the government needs to make sure that it is really listening to and reflecting on the views of the public on these proposals.

Finally, we also think there needs to be a more strategic approach to minimising adverse impacts: there is an issue about the maximum speed of the line. It is possible that if the maximum speed of the trains was reduced a little, there would be more scope for landscaping, for varying of the route slightly so that they could minimise some of the impact.

We think we should be avoiding environmental impacts where possible and mitigating them when not. The organisations who support the charter are seeking to engage positively with the government, but at the moment we feel the approach to high-speed rail falls short of what the charter is calling for.

We believe a high-speed rail line could help to provide the extra rail capacity that the country needs but we think that the amount of damage that would be caused to the beauty and tranquillity of much-loved countryside under current proposals is not acceptable. We believe there is a lot more thinking and discussion that needs to be done before any proposal is taken forward.

The CPRE has said that many elements of the National Planning Policy Framework are deeply worrying. What are your specific concerns?

We do have very serious concerns about the national planning policy framework.

I should say to start with that we don't object to making planning policy shorter or simpler, and we support the government's stated aim of increasing local involvement in the planning system through neighbourhood planning. However, if you look at the NPPF it appears to be more about driving through approval for development, with little regard for its environmental impact, rather than about localism or good planning.

Our concerns in this area were sparked some time before we saw the planning framework, beginning with the statement that George Osborne made in his Budget when he described planning as a chronic obstacle to growth, and suggested that there should now be a default 'yes' to development.

The NPPF isn't all bad; we are pleased that it includes confirmation of ongoing protection for national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest. We are also pleased that there is confirmation of a new designation to protect areas of particular importance to local people, although we do have concerns over how strong that will be.

There are a number of deeply alarming changes in the NPPF. One of them is the failure to commit to protect the non-designated countryside through planning, in the same way as previously. Countryside outside of the special sites that I have mentioned is the countryside that most people live in, or near to, and the countryside that most people visit. The protection of this land seems to be weakened by the framework, and that makes us concerned that it will be easier to develop in the countryside.

We think that this would actually make it more difficult to achieve the aims of the aforementioned white paper, in terms of improving the environmental quality of the countryside overall. Our concerns about the countryside and the possibility of urban sprawl are exacerbated by the government's decision to scrap national targets on development on 'brownfield' (previously developed) sites, and to scrap national density targets.

These targets helped ensure that a high percentage of new development, I think almost 80 per cent in 2009, happened on previously used sites, which led to both urban regeneration and also protection of the countryside from development pressure. There is also no mention in the national planning policy framework of a 'brownfield-first' approach to development, which makes development on green fields more likely.

We really hope that the government will recognise the level of concern surrounding these proposals and make changes to them following the public consultation period.

Our branches up and down the country are very angry about these proposals and are urging our national organisation to be even more strident in opposing them, which is really contrary to the impression some ministers have sought to give of a vendetta by the national offices of CPRE and the National Trust against these proposals.

We are very much speaking for the concern and anger of our members. I know that there was some suggestion by Bob Neill that this opposition was being led by left-wingers in national charities' offices. I think our members wouldn't generally be regarded as left-wingers but I can tell you that they really are up in arms about this.

Was the Waste Review a missed opportunity to truly tackle littering issues?

Yes, I think sadly that the Waste Review was a missed opportunity on litter.

We have been pleased with some of the coalition's environmental policies. We were very pleased that action on litter was mentioned specifically in the coalition agreement; it demonstrated a real priority for that. We were pleased that the government has supported the establishment of 'Love Where You Live', as a new national campaign on litter. We have also welcomed Caroline Spelman's recent recognition that littering from vehicles is a perennial problem, and we hope that recognition is going to be followed by some legislative change that will make that issue easier to tackle.

The Waste Review, however, was a disappointment, particularly in the government's decision not to take forward a deposit refund scheme (DRS) for drinks containers.

Research that we have commissioned has shown that a scheme of this nature would cost relatively little to set up, that it would generate jobs and that it would enjoy strong public support. Perhaps most importantly, it would reduce litter and massively increase recycling rates for targeted materials.

In countries and states within the US that have a DRS, recycling rates for some of these materials can be as high as 90 per cent. The government has said that, at this stage, it doesn't favour such a scheme and it wants to explore other ways to increase recycling and reduce litter.

We don't think there is much indication from the government as to what these other ways are, and very little evidence that we are aware of that they would deliver the kind of results you can get from deposit refund schemes.

For the moment we are going to be stuck, sadly, with the prospect of towns and countryside littered with drinks containers. Let's hope this isn't something the government has taken off the table altogether, that it will continue to look at it, and that it might be something that gets introduced in the not-too-distant future.

What are the CPRE's overall views on the government's approach to rural affairs, conservation and the environment?

David Cameron, last May, set the bar pretty high when he said he wanted to lead the greenest government ever. Organisations like CPRE want to hold him to that.

I think, in some areas, such as the production of an ambitious natural environment white paper, such as launching a new national anti-litter campaign and also an increase in higher level agri-environment spending, the government has done good things.

But I think it will be hard to justify that 'greenest government ever' tag if the assault on good planning continues; if, as at present, pretty much all environmental regulation and legislation is described as 'red tape' in a government consultation exercise, and unless there's concerted action across government to deliver on the environmental agenda, which means leadership from David Cameron and the Treasury as well.

We have probably heard more from them on the importance of the environment in opposition than we have in government. We recognise there are lots of pressing and different challenges when you are in government but, if you want to lead the greenest government ever, you need to give some pretty strong indications that you think it's a big priority.

I think it's important that we do see that it's a picture where there are good things as well as less good things.

There really are some very critical decisions that will be made in the coming months, particularly around planning policy, that could help to shape the whole direction of how the government proceeds on the environment.

I think that they've got the opportunity to get things right, but there is also the real risk that if they do the wrong things then it's going to be very much more difficult to protect the environment in the years ahead.

Throughout recess, ePolitix.com will be focusing on a different policy theme each week. This week we are featuring articles with a focus on the green agenda.