Is my SOA a Sustainable Community?

The Communities and Local Government Department define a sustainable communitie as "places where people want to live and work, now and in the future. They meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents, are sensitive to their environment, and contribute to a high quality of life. They are safe and inclusive, well planned, built and run, and offer equality of opportunity and good services for all" (link)

The Egan Wheel shows the areas that a sustainable community should include. These are things such as good transport services, environmental provisions, economic opportunities and more.

I live in the Super Output Area of Milton Keynes 010B and I am going to see how this area compares with the Egan Wheel of Sustainable Communities.

Governance - Notice is given to residents when a building project is intended. For example in the park by my house a flood-lit astroturf pitch has been built. We were sent letters of this, and opposed it because of the light pollution, as did many people in our street but they still went ahead with it. They said it would be beneficial for the community but really it is only used for teenagers to get drunk in and to play with mopeds in. In this respect the SOA is unsustainable because residents cannot be heard.

On another note though the road by our house was lowered to 40 from 60 a few years ago after years of crashes. This has been enforced a little with police speed cameras turning up about 3 times. People still speed though and one person died on the road in September 2008. This is not sustainable.

Transport and Connectivity - Being in Milton Keynes it is fairly easy to get around because of the grid system. The SOA is situated on the V4 (Watling Street) which links very well with the town centre by car. There are also buses that are supposed to be every 10 minutes which go to town and to Wolverton as well as places such as the hospital. In reality though they do not come every 10 minutes as I know only too well from experience. In the next town along from Stony Stratford is Wolverton where there is a train station. To make my SOA more sustainable I think better transport links with the station and with the town centre could be made.

Services - The amount of services available in Stony Stratford is very good. The High Street has many pubs, restaurants (take-aways and eat-in), travel agents, estate agents, chemists, butchers, hotels, a small supermarket and independent shops. There are also schools, a park, and a health centre. In this respect my SOA is very sustainable.

Environmental - Over 50% of the SOA is green space (link. In recent years recycling bins have been placed which has reduced the amount of litter and reduced the amount of waste going to landfill. There is also a nature reserve in the SOA which provides clean open spaces for everyone to enjoy - however, the A5 runs through it and the Stony Stratford ring road is next to it. Trees have been planted to block most of the noise which has worked. In Environmental terms my SOA is also fairly sustainable.

Equity - According to the 2001 census 7.2% of people in my SOA were not born in the UK. (link) Compared to England's average of 9.2% it is only a little below. This data is 9 years out of date however and I think that there may now be more people living here that were not born in the UK. Still, my SOA has a significant amount of people born outside of the UK. I think that they have all of the same opportunities as everyone else living here. The shops enmploy these people and their children attend the local schools, there is no discrimination.

There is also an Adult Education Centre in Stony Stratford which allows adults to improve their education - giving them equal opportunities. This is a sustainable SOA in terms of equity.

Economy - as I have mentioned before Stony Stratford has a thiriving economic hub that is the High Street and surrounding area. This provides many jobs and opportunities for everyone. For the size town it is it has more than enough economic oppoutunities, making it very sustainable. It is also close to the Centre:MK with even more opportunities. Stony Stratford has many independent shops also, showing that it is possible to start up a new business here and be successful.

Houseing - My SOA has an array of bungalows, flats, terraces, semi-detached houses and detached houses. (link. This means that there is something for everyone to afford. There are also lots of open spaces for people to enjoy as I have mentioned before. This is a sustainable area in terms of housing.

Social and Cultural - Stony Stratford has a good community feel. There are always markets and fetes organised by parish councils and schools. This gives everyone a sense of place. Stony is also quite a safe place. There is a police station near by in Wolverton and there are often police officers patrolling.

Overall I think my SOA is fairly sustainable in that there are a lot of open spaces, generally there is a good community feel, there are lots of economic and recreational opportunities for everyone and it is a generally safe area. Some things can be done to improve this but it is definitely more good than bad.

I live in the Constituency of Milton Keynes South West. Our council (Milton Keynes County Council) is made up of councillors who are affiliated with all three of the main parties. LibDem and Tory dominate the council and yet our MP, Phyllis Starkey, is Labour.

Stony Stratford, where I live, have 3 councillors - all Conservative (not that I am..). The next ward along, Wolverton, has 2 Labour councillors and one LibDem. Milton Keynes is very varied in its political affiliations but within the wards tend to be the same party.

A few weeks ago our MP knocked on our door and asked us if she could count on our vote and said that she trusts that we are happy with all the things that they are doing for ud locally. This obviously hit a nerve with my mum who, completely out of character, started challenging Phyllis Starkey. My mum is a teacher in a local primary school and they are often struggling due to lack of funding etc and the catchment area for this school includes some of the more deprived estates of MK so she hears stories of how the council aren't providing for basis needs. Phyllis Starkey had little to say to this challenge. Instead our MP tried to change the subject, as she saw me and my sister, and said that they were making it easier and creating more spaces for young people to go to university. My mum replied with saying how unfair it was to send us into the 'big wide world' with such debt and not really seeing evidence of how this debt has benefitted is - seeing as many graduates seem not to be going into jobs that they could have done when they left school.

I can see where my mum was coming from with all of these issues and I can see why she felt she had to raise these concerns. (By the way Phyllis Starkey made her excuses and left, concluding that in actual fact she could not count on our vote). My mum has said to me that this is the first year where she is unsure who to vote for. Having studied politics for a year I should say that the people who choose not to vote obviously don't care about what happens in our society and therefore should not complain about and public services etc etc. However I do not think this, I think that many people are disillusioned with the people whom we are supposed to trust to guide us in the right direction. People may feel like this for a number of reasons such as the expenses scandal or just the general lack of evidence of all this work that our local councils are supposedly doing for us (by the way I don't claim to be able to do a better job).

I do have one wish though, that they people who do not want to vote actually do go and excercise their 'right not to vote' but ruining the ballot paper. This way councils may catch on to how many disillusioned people there are instead of counting these people as 'can't be bothered'.

I am going to vote. I know who I am going to vote for. I support the LibDems because of their fair policies, they are the best of Labour and the best of Conservative and they are our best chance of getting our outdated practices changed. We claim to be a democracy but have failed to keep up with the demands of our people. A coalition government would probably be the best result of the next election - that way more people will be listened to. This has to be more fair, right? Who knows, it could happen.

Sustainable Transport

The beginnings of our infrastructure can be traced back to the Romans, the first great contributor to our road network. They realised that in order for them to develop they needed to be able to have access with and communication with other towns and cities. (link). The Romans obviously had the right idea because the Roman Empire was very successful and long lived. Some argue that they lived more advanced and comfortable lives than people who would live for the next 1000 years, showing that a good infrastructure is integral to the development of society and economy. The Roman infrastructure had little impact on the environment; a win-win situation.

As Britain developed so its demand for an improved infrastructure increased. This lead to developments in roads, canals and railways to this present day.



Transport has benefits for the economy. It means that people can get to work - public transport can be used if people cannot afford private transport. A good city transport system can promote business developments there and around the system. Helsinki has an excellent tram system which is reliable, affordable and means that there are less cars on the road (which is safer and less congested) this all allows for a very economically productive city.

Public transport means that less cars are on the roads and so the remaining road users are able to get to work quicker, resulting in less business time lost to commuting. It also means that people are able to work far from their homes and that businesses can become national and international more easily due to a comprehensive transport system. This greatly improves economic activity.

However, transport systems can also have negative economic impacts. For example the upkeep of roads (e.g. recent potholes) is a constant drain on the national economy.
When public transport fails and people cannot get to work there is an economic loss.


Good public transport systems can reduce the emissions of a city and the congestion, making for a cleaner environment. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) can be used as a fuel and has huge advantages over Diesel (link). Biofuel vehicles are also being researched and improved. This would make for a transport system that would nave little negative impact on the environment.

Unfortunately the transition into a transport infrastructure is slow. We have the knowledge that we need to build vehicles and transport networks that would be kind to the environment but there is not enough money available or other issues are taking priority. This means that currently our transport infrastructure is not at its full potential.

The Transport Statistics of Great Britain (link >International Comparisons) show that between 1997 and 2007 CO2 emissions in each sector of transport (road transport, rail, civil aviation and navigation) have gone up. Suggesting that there is definitely room for improvement.

This study (link) suggests that UK diesel trains are outdated and that they are less fuel efficient than a car. This heavily undermines the campaigns to persuade people to use public transport. This website (link) suggests that the government are spending less on trains. However it also says that car journeys of less than 2 miles are the most polluting, so perhaps a change in attitudes or a change in local transport such as buses should be improved.


No-one can argue that a transport system doesn't benefit people on a social level. It is a part of human development, we now have the ability to visit other places and go on holiday with ease. The social benefits of transport are endless.
The

The Transport Statistics of Great Britain (link above) shows that road deaths have decresed between 1997 and 2007 in the UK and that they are also lower than much of Europe. This statistic shows how the UK transport system is improving on a social level, safer roads are a definate social benefit!!

There are also a few things that I would consider disadvantages of transport; it causes a lot of stress! Congestion on our roads and the unreliability of public transport. I take the bus, the train and then the bus to university and quite regularly it doesn't work out. There is also a lot of waiting around which, if we had an improved system, would not exist. The fact that many roads are still unsafe is also a social disadvantage of transport.

Japan's bullet train is an excellent example of a good transport system - it is very reliable (good for the social aspects of travel), it is very fast which means that there is more time for other things, so the economy benefits, and it is much more fuel efficient than other forms of transport. It's a win-win situation! The only downside is that it did cost quite a lot to build it, so we might have to wait until we're out of the recession...


Summing up all of the evidence above I would have to say that the benefits of our transport infrastructure definitely outweigh the costs. That is not to say that our system comes without costs, there are too many for my liking. As long as we work on improving it and don't let the situation get worse (Government spending cuts and rising CO2 emissions) then we are on the right track, changes CAN be made, we have the technology and knowledge, we just need the money and the ambition to improve it now. We need to move to a more safe, environmentally friendly, reliable, faster and cheaper transport system. Not much to ask.

Christmas

In my view the present day world is full of burden, responsibilities and people frowning down at you, waiting for you to act and then making you feel guilty for it. It is like this all year. Then Christmas comes and we forget how harsh the world can be (mostly forget, we aren't allowed to completely escape from it).

I think that Christmas can be sustainable and it is moving towards sustainability. Christmas lights are becoming more energy efficient (LEDs), companies are obliged to manufacture goods more sustainably - less packaging, less waste, lower energy usage.

If Christmas was scrutinised and we were all made to feel bad about indulging and were made to be frugal then I think that Christmas would be completely different. The social aspect of it wouldn't work. People would feel unhappy and I think the general health of the population would decrease because Christmas is a time to relax and unwind from the stresses of every day life. It people were denied this then the incidence of people with diseases such as stress would increase; putting a further burden on society.

It would not work economically either. Many businesses gain their highest amount of profit around the Christmas period, including retail and the travel industry. Maybe business would adapt in the long run, but on a short term basis many businesses would close, leaving people out of work etc. This would create many problems for the economy.

The only pillar of sustainability that may benefit from Christmas becoming more sustainable is the environment. With less demand for resources for consumption (packaging, electricity, food etc) then the environment would flourish. However I'm not sure that this outweighs the negative impacts on society and the economy.

Merry Christmas

I have just looked at The Sun's website for the first time and found it very difficult to find any news on there. As far as I can see it is all celebrity gossip which is of no use to anyone! I find it quite worrying that this newspaper (if you can call it a NEWSpaper) has the highest circulation in the UK. That means that this newspaper has the highest potential influence in the UK - they could print anything and I would bet that many people would beleive it, unquestioning.

The Independent's website, however, is not inundated with gossip, it is clearly layed out and easy to see the news. The top story on the Independent's website at the moment is about banking charges that affect everyone. The Sun's top stories circulate from a Jet Man's crash, X factor gossip and I'm a celebrity gossip.

I think that the newspapers have a responsibility to print the truth, because many people will beleive anything they read - therefore giving some political parties an advantage if they have an affiliation with a particular newspaper. I also think that they should try to be less biased - this is why I like the Independent, they print the truth as they have nothing to gain from supporting a political party. However I'd like to think that people would go out and find other evidence to form a fair opinion on important issues.

The fact that I couldn't see any evidence of any serious issues being reported on the Sun's website is slightly unfair - I think people have a right to know what is going on in their lives - having said this though I would also like to expect that people wouldn't buy a newspaper such as the Sun to become informed on such matters.

Reality shows and soaps have a certain type of follower and the stereotype of this individual is one who does not take much interest in many intellectual matters. The sort of television that they view could be blamed for this outcome but I do not think this is the case. I beleive that most people have the ability so separate what they watch on these programs and real life and therefore the above programs should have little influence.

Informed Citizens?

An informed citizen is supposed to be able to make informed decisions. This is important in a democratic society. The media and the Government can only provide the information for us to then utilise. I think that it is our duty to take an interest in how our country is run because it affects our everyday lives. I’ve always thought that it was quite hypocritical of people that complained about politics etc, who didn’t even care to learn about our political system or to vote! People can be very susceptible to the media and that has the potential for great change. For example in recent times the BNP has gained a lot of popularity, I believe this to be because only some of their beliefs and policies are portrayed to general public. If the same people took it upon themselves to read their manifesto on their website I think that quite a few of them would be shocked and would change their minds!! It is because of precisely this that it is an individual’s own responsibility to be informed and to gain a non-biased knowledge. Only then can decisions at a higher level be made and truly reflect the views of the population.

There is a lot that I don’t know that I probably should but I know how to find information that I need so that I can hear all sides of an argument before forming an opinion. I think I am a sufficiently informed citizen and that there are many people who are not as informed as me and who will believe everything they hear in the media. This is why the obvious media, such as newspapers, is not the only way that people should be informed, there are many other ways to research important issues such as books, the internet, documentaries and even word of mouth. This is how I become informed on serious issues. It is important to be able to tell if something is biased and what is true and what is not.

Complicated decisions are made easier when they are shared. The complicated decisions that affect our everyday lives should not just be left to someone else to deal with because they are too difficult. I think that with these decisions it would be best to involve many people (informed people) together to decide, together, what it is best to do. This way the result reflects the views of the people more than it would if left up to only a few people.

Response to Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'

After watching the Al Gore DVD, An Inconvenient Truth, all I could think of was that we’re doomed. It seems pretty impossible to be able to cut our waste by enough to stop major environmental change happening soon!! But that it was Gore is trying to get people to realise - that we need to act. I think that the film is good in some ways because it can be used to bring this issue of sustainability back to Earth and make it hit home for all the people who don’t realise the magnitude of what we are doing.
I do think they deserved the Nobel Peace Prize because it is a pioneering documentary – yes, studies had been done before but Al Gore had the capability to make them heard to a much wider audience, this is a key thing.
I think that after watching the film that hardly anyone would be able to ignore its message. This means that it has a positive influence on people to become more sustainable and more educated about the environment around us. This is such a valuable thing because education is key to sustainability.
The film was good in the fact that it had concrete information about our environment that no-one can dispute, whereas in conversation about climate change it is difficult to back up your argument and therefore difficult to convince someone of its effects. Al Gore was also able to prove an opposing argument obsolete; the fact that many people argue that global warming is natural and has occurred in the past. Gore acknowledged that fact but, with evidence, showed that it had not happened to the extent or with the rapidity of today. He showed that these two things were the problem – he made it so that no-one could contradict him, therefore making is a very good film.