We’d love to talk Building services all day, but we’re aware that most of our readers have more interest in our environmental posts.  Some topics are hotter than others…  more now from the defra 2009 Public attitudes and behaviours towards the environment survey.

Defra asked respondents to list reasons why biodiversity should be conserved and asked them to rank them in order of importance, starting with the most important. The reasons given were:
- It makes green open spaces more pleasant places to visit
- It contributes to the quality of our air and water
- We cannot afford to lose species that might one day provide medical or other benefits we have not yet discovered
- We all have a duty to minimise our impacts on nature and the planet.

For the purposes of the current analysis, these reasons have been ranked according to the proportion of respondents that selected them as either the 1st or 2nd most important reason, followed by the proportion that selected them as either the 3rd or 4th most important reason. Table 40 summarises this analysis for each of the factors.

DEFRA September 2009

Respondents reported that the most important reason to conserve biodiversity (of the four) was “we all have a duty to minimise our impacts on nature and the planet‟. 65% selected this as either their first or second most important reason and were least likely to select this as the third or fourth most important (35% selected this).
The second and third options in Table 40 (“we cannot afford to lose species that might one day provide medical or other benefits we have not yet discovered‟ and “it contributes to the quality of our air and water‟) were rated as of similar importance. About half of respondents selected one of these two statements as either their first or second most important reason (52% and 51% respectively). However, a similar proportion selected these statements as their third or fourth most important reasons.
Overall, the least important reason as judged by respondents was “it makes green open spaces more pleasant places to visit‟ – one third (33%) of respondents selected this as either the first or second most important reason, while around double this proportion (67%) selected it as either the third or fourth most important reason.

Public attitudes and behaviours towards the environment – tracker survey DEFRA September 2009

BuilderScrap.com would be interested to discuss your feelings on Bio-fuels. Specifically examining the  associated harm to the ecosystem and biodiversity. This is an extension on Mikes post from last week, but from a local point of view… in Avonmouth.

BBC News,Dave Harvey,Tuesday, 23 February 2010

Councillors on the North Bristol Planning committee face a busy Wednesday. A new house is being built in Sneyd Park, and they want to knock down some ‘non-listed structures’. Bristol Zoo have a standard renewal request with construction costs for overflow parking on The Downs. Oh, and then there’s Borneo’s orangutans.

Yes, a rather unusual application for a new power station in Avonmouth has raised a massive debate covering the future of the Earth’s rainforests and the protection of primates.

The officers’ report for the committee today notes there have been 1,121 letters from the public, two of which are in favour. It’s hugely complicated, and hugely fascinating. New technology that might bring us genuinely green electricity, or the latest piece of ‘greenwash’ from the bio-fuel industry.

The question is this. Should councillors, pardon the pun, give a monkey’s for orangutans?

Council officers clearly don’t think so, though their report puts it far more delicately. They’ve recommended approval of the plans. Here’s why.

First, because this is a planning committee, not a climate change debate. Officers have exhaustively trawled the local government literature, and they conclude:

“… direct planning guidance for this type of development is provided within PPS22: Renewable Energy and its companion guide, PPS22, Planning for Renewable Energy, and advises that the production of the fuel source itself does not fall within the remit of the Local Planning Authority decision-making process.”.

In other words, councillors must only decide if replacing this industrial relic with a new power station burning oil from palm trees or jatropha plants will spoil Avonmouth. As you can see, the site is not exactly a beauty spot at the moment.

“But but but but!” I can hear those 1,119 objectors cry, led by the Leader of the City Council herself, Barbara Janke. She wrote recently to Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband:

“There is a strong danger to biodiversity, as well as the knock-on effect of taking land out of food production and climate change implications of processing the fuels and shipping them across the globe.”

Bristol is trying to win “Green Capital” status. The city is home to any number of ecological organisations, from the Soil Association to Sustrans and beyond. If this bio-technology is not sustainable, how can the city allow it on its own doorstep?

Officers, in the cool world of planning, note all the arguments and motions that have been passed in their report. But the killer argument is this. There already is a regulator for renewable energy, and it is not the planning committee’s job to second guess.

“It is evident that if the Government are requiring Ofgem to assess sustainability issues in nationally significant schemes relating to the sourcing of biofuels that receive Renewable Obligation Certificates [ROCs], the same would also apply to smaller scale schemes that receive ROCs. On this basis, for local planning authorities to also consider sustainability issues in respect of the proposed development would result in significant duplication of assessment on issues which are clearly controlled through other areas of legislative control.”

They are right, factually. Ofgem does police ROCs, which are the lifeblood of the green power business. Without them, new technologies like biofuel or offshore wind cannot make money. So the officers argue that since one hand of government is already checking the fuel source, there is no point every council in the land having their own opinion.

Will councillors agree with their officers? Who knows. But the temperature of this debate has been raised by Cllr Janke’s comments. Her own colleague, Cllr Steve Comer who is on the North Bristol committee, recently cautioned her high-profile intervention.

“It is possible that our opponents will accuse us of being subject to ‘whipping’ next month when this comes before the Committee, and will(selectively) quote from the Leader’s press release to do so.

The objection to this plant seems largely based on the source of the fuel that it might use once it is operating. I understand the objections, yet when it comes to planning we cannot use … morality to reject the application, any refusal will have to be on clear PLANNING grounds.”

If the house in Stoke Bishop awaiting ‘non-listed demolition work approval’ is yours, come prepared for a long wait before your application comes up.

bbc.co.uk/blogs/daveharvey/2010/02/bristol_or_borneo_how_are_biof.html

Todays BuilderScrap.com post does not explain about our Builders Exchange. We have chosen to focus on our concern for the environment and people attitudes towards biodiversity.

The research included a number of attitude statements related specifically to biodiversity. Respondents were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with each. Three of the statements were new to the 2009 survey so trend data are only available for some of the measures.

The results show that the vast majority report being concerned about the loss of biodiversity in the world with 85% agreeing that ‘I do worry about the loss of species of animals and plants in the world’ (54% of these agreeing strongly).The vast majority also agreed that there were many natural places that they may never visit but they were glad they existed (91%, with 65% agreeing strongly).

The majority were also concerned about biodiversity on a domestic level – eight in ten (80%) agreed that they worried about changes to the countryside in the UK and loss of native animals and plants (with 41% agreeing strongly). Two-thirds (66%) agreed that we should subsidise farming in hilly and mountainous areas to maintain the landscape for recreation and wildlife. Two thirds (67%) agreed that they actively encouraged wildlife in their garden although the results indicated that not all of these people equated this with protecting biodiversity per se as a lower percentage (45%) of all respondents disagreed there was nothing they could do personally to help to protect the UK’s biodiversity while 26% agreed with this statement.

The majority (63%) of respondents agreed that climate change did have a direct impact on biodiversity and very few people disagreed with this statement. 13% said they did not know if climate change had a direct impact and nearly one in five said they neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement.

There had been no change in levels of agreement with the statement ‘I do worry about the changes to the countryside in the UK and loss of native animals and plants’ since the 2007 Defra survey (see Table 38). However, there had been a slight increase in the proportion of respondents agreeing that there is nothing they could do personally to help protect the UK‟s biodiversity, from 22% in 2007 to 26% in 2009. The proportion who disagreed with this had decreased from 51% to 45%.

The proportion who agreed that they actively encouraged wildlife in their garden appears to have decreased slightly since 2007 (from 74% to 67%). However, in 2007, this question was asked only of those who had a garden, whereas in 2009 this was asked of all respondents.

BuilderScrap.com are looking at Biodiversity. The survey included a number of questions to gauge respondents ‘knowledge of’ and ‘attitudes and behaviours’ towards biodiversity. We’re going to summarise the findings from these questions alongside findings which relate to respondents’ use of green spaces (including gardens, public parks and open spaces).

Knowledge of the term biodiversity

Respondents were asked to say how much, if anything, they knew about the term biodiversity. The question was asked without providing respondents with a definition of what biodiversity was. Just over one in ten in total knew either a lot about it (3%) or a fair amount about it (8%). Around one fifth (19%) said they knew just a little and 17% said they knew nothing about it but had heard of the name. Half (50%) said that they knew nothing about it and had never heard of ‘biodiversity’.
The 2009 figures indicate a lower level of knowledge about biodiversity compared with 2007 (the same question was asked on the 2007 Defra omnibus survey). In 2007 fewer respondents said they had never heard of biodiversity in 2007 (44%) and respondents were more likely to indicate that they knew nothing about biodiversity but had heard the name (21% in 2007 compared with 17% in 2009). However, these changes were small and the proportion who said they knew a lot or a fair amount about biodiversity is comparable between the two surveys.

After responding to this question, all respondents were provided with a definition of biodiversity so everyone was able to answer subsequent questions: ‘Biodiversity is the variety of living things and the natural environments that support them’.
Respondents were asked to indicate how much thought they had given prior to the survey to the loss of biodiversity in the UK and elsewhere in the world. The findings from this question are presented in Table 37 compared with the 2007 Defra omnibus survey findings.

The results in the above table show that the level of thought given to loss of biodiversity in the UK was very similar to that given to loss of biodiversity elsewhere in the world. A small proportion (7%) of respondents said they had given a great deal of thought to biodiversity in the UK or elsewhere, while 14% said they had given a fair amount of thought. It was more likely for respondents to say they had given a little thought to loss of biodiversity in the UK (25%) or elsewhere in the world (24%). However, the largest group of respondents indicated that they had not really given any thought to loss of biodiversity either within the UK (49%) or elsewhere in the world (49%).

A smaller proportion of respondents said they had given some thought to the loss of biodiversity in 2009 compared with 2007. In 2007, slightly more than two thirds of respondents said they had given either a little, a fair amount or a lot of thought to loss of biodiversity in the UK (67%) and elsewhere in the world (70%) compared with less than one half in 2009 (45% on both measures).

This weeks first instalment of the BuilderScrap sustainable construction draft responses…Enjoy!

Q: One aim of the proposal would be to create an integrated approach to maintain and where possible enhance biodiversity as a result of construction sector activity. Please say what you think would be helpful to companies in the construction sector to support the aims of maintaining and enhancing biodiversity.

1. One third of those who responded to this question cited the important role of the planning system in ensuring that biodiversity was taken into account in new developments. Better use might be made of the Planning Gain Supplement – or of Supplementary Planning Guidance – in implementing green infrastructure initiatives.

2. Just over a quarter of respondents identified the need for raising awareness of biodiversity issues and the role of training throughout the supply chain to improve understanding of how individual projects could contribute to biodiversity and the creation of public green space.

3. Just under a quarter of respondents cited the need for a simple guide, widely available, on biodiversity and for a list of quick wins on how to improve and protect biodiversity on projects. Many commented that there were already several relevant regulatory and good practice measures and requirements (e.g. Environmental Assessments, such as BREEAM and Biodiversity Action Plans) which might be included in the Strategy.

4. Some suggested that environmental assessment methodologies, such as BREEAM, could serve to enhance and measure biodiversity on sites. These tools could also be developed to provide credit for site-wide ecological enhancement. Environmental Management Plans such as BREEAM and Biodiversity Action Plans were existing mechanisms for helping the construction industry engage more effectively with conservation and biodiversity issues.

5. Some respondents suggested the Strategy should acknowledge the importance of a green infrastructure in delivering a range of social, environmental and economic benefits. Attenuating storm water run-off through the use of green roofs and green space was, for instance, seen as an important component of sustainable communities. To realise its full potential, considerations about the green infrastructure needed to be taken into account in development proposals from the outset.

6. Many respondents welcomed the proposal to convene a construction and building materials industry workshop. A result of this workshop might be a Draft Strategy for Sustainable Construction Chapter Title: Biodiversity set of guidance papers for the industry developed in partnership with a range of organisations such as local water authorities, Natural England, the Environment Agency, wildlife Trusts, NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisations), the Town and Country Planning Association, CIRIA (Construction Industry Research and Information Association), BSRIA, the Building Research Establishment, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and English Heritage.

7. Some respondents favoured a stronger emphasis on the natural environment in the targets for sustainable construction. Possible targets could be impacts on biodiversity which were neutral or enhancing (e.g. in terms of species and habitats), which could be measured through BREEAM or CEEQUAL (Civil Engineering Environmental Quality and Assessment Scheme).

8. Other suggested possibilities included:

The creation of habitat maps for particular species or wildlife in the area around a site;

Encouraging consultants and developers to increase habitat links in the area as a means of enhancing the biodiversity of the site;

Options to contribute to biodiversity projects offsite; and

The development of Site Biodiversity Action Plans for projects over a certain value (say £1m).

Respondents also pointed out that initial site surveys of biodiversity could be time-sensitive (subject to seasonal variations) and delay development considerably..