RESPONSE TO INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY GREEN PAPER CONSULTATION
April 2017
1. CPRE campaigns for a beautiful and living countryside. As well as our national office in London,
we have almost 60,000 members and supporters, 43 county branches and more than 100 active
district groups up and down England.
2. CPRE welcomes elements of the Green Paper, in particular the need to rebalance the economy
(p.107 – 117). To do this the Government needs to move away from a ‘predict and provide’
model and recognise that correcting the geographical imbalance in the economy doesn’t only
require supporting places that are struggling, but also recognising environmental limits and
avoiding stoking unsustainable growth in places that are already booming. Growth and
investment should be redirected to the areas that need it. As well as reducing the imbalance in
the economy, this evening out the spread of growth in the economy, and the infrastructure
needed to support it, can ameliorate some damaging environmental impacts such as loss of green
space, pollution and congestion. CPRE urges the Government to give due weight to the value of
green space and the countryside, which have been shown to be important to people1 and their
wellbeing.2
3. Our main concern with the Green Paper is that it misses opportunities, by not giving sufficient
recognition to the natural capital on which all economic activity relies, in particular land. The
Paper recognises that the current failure to align planning for infrastructure, housing and
industry is problematic and that fragmented institutions are part of problem. However, a
coherent solution to this is not proposed. Inspired in part by the Scottish Land Use Strategy,
CPRE’s recent publication Landlines sets out the need for a more strategic approach to land use
decision making in England. This would help alleviate land use conflicts and lead to a more
efficient use of land in response to the growing demands put on it. CPRE believes the Government
should build on the innovative steps taken in establishing a National Infrastructure Commission
(NIC) and a Natural Capital Committee (NCC) and commit to developing a more coherent
approach to land use. An initial step would be to ensure the NIC incorporates natural capital into
long-term infrastructure plans as recommended by the NCC.
4. More specifically on the use of land, it is important that decisions regarding infrastructure
intended to support economic growth are made on the best available evidence. This should be
an additional principle governing infrastructure decisions (Q34). For instance, we have just
published a major piece of independent research that shows completed road schemes are
consistently failing to deliver their objectives, such as boosting local economies and reducing
congestion in the medium term. Investment in public transport, cycling and walking is more
likely to improve productivity by tackling congestion and increasing agglomeration effects.
5. As the Green Paper notes, design is one of the UK’s strengths. We are therefore disappointed
that there is no mention in the Green Paper of the importance of good design when developing
new infrastructure – besides being an opportunity for UK industry to showcase its strengths, this
is a vital factor in determining whether new infrastructure increases the attractiveness of a
place. In answer to Question 17, the global leaders in infrastructure (e.g. Switzerland and
In DCMS Taking Part Survey 2014/15 almost two thirds (59 per cent) of adults cited that the British countryside
and scenery made them most proud of Britain.
2 See Natural England’s report ‘A review of nature-based interventions for mental health care’ (2016) and IEEP
report ‘Nature for Health and Equity’ 2017.
1
1
Singapore) have both exemplary design standards and strong environmental policies. The UK
should seek to adopt this approach. Key lessons from the HS2 process are the importance of
setting up design panels early and that procurement is a key enabler of good design (questions
23 & 24).
6. Finally, CPRE welcomes the new commitment in the Green Paper (p.125) to review Local
Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) and examine how to spread best practice. CPRE has major
concerns about the impact of LEPs on the countryside and on rural economies. CPRE’s experience
of LEPs is that, although they usually include the environment in their Strategic Economic Plan,
it is not properly taken into account within the projects they promote and fund. Rather, the
countryside is just seen as an asset to support economic growth rather than an asset that should
be protected and enhanced within these growth plans. An overarching issue with LEPs is their
lack of transparency, limited representation and / or meetings that are open to the public. This
makes people distrustful of their motives and processes. In its review, Government should ensure
that best practice on incorporating environmental issues into projects and on a transparent,
democratic ways of working are disseminated to all LEPs.
Suggested actions:
Government should:







Draw up further measures to rebalance economic growth to direct growth away from overpressured areas towards areas that would benefit from further growth.
Commit to developing a better approach to land use, for example by developing a land use
strategy.
Ensure NIC’s deliverables take account of opportunities for integration of natural capital.
Ensure infrastructure decisions are informed by the best available evidence and accurate
assessments of what similar investments have delivered.
Ensure, through setting up design panels and through better procurement practices, that all
infrastructure projects deliver excellent design.
Review LEPs and help them improve their transparency and recognition of and engagement
with environmental issues.
Ensure the Strategy and its policies are rural proofed in accordance with the Government’s
newly published guidance.
Belinda Gordon ([email protected])
CPRE
April 2017
2