As an additional research, I have discovered on the Internet that some of the older residents would like to see a community centre built and there was a call to make sure there were facilities for disabled people available. The call for compensation is relatively unreasonable, as the developers could not afford such a suggestion.
Another concern is the rent and the prices of houses. Most of the local residents have noted that these prices have risen since the development has been introduced and are not pleased with this fact. Even though the residents are aware of the advancement and the improvements of the area as a whole and that naturally prices would increase, they are still unhappy that they will have to pay more. This can result in their demand for higher income, which can thus outcome in many businesses losing on their average profit, as people would tend to save rather than spend more. Additionally, some residents might want to move away from the area due to the growth in prices. However those that do decide to stay would insist on the higher quality of housing accommodations.
As I live in the area and attend NWCS, I am perfectly aware of the complaints that might have come from the residents and the businesses. There has been an increase in traffic congestion and of course noise and environmental pollution. Due to the augmentation in the number of people coming to and from the local area, it has become more crowded and many entrances were blocked. However this is only a short-term social cost, as in the long run, once the development has been completed, the developers are looking to provide clearer and safer roads for the public.
Many local residents were not happy about the school closing down, as they would have to move their children further away and also pay extra travel costs. However, some were indifferent as the school is next to a motor way and therefore extremely dangerous.
The main social benefits were the rises in employment, leisure facilities such as shopping, and also the boost in tourism, which could bring the local businesses many advantages in the long run.
These are the main long-term quality of life indicators that will affect the local residents:
Economic growth: the residents are concerned with how the whole economy is doing because it would directly affect their lives. If the economic growth is slow, some residents might lose their jobs and struggle to support themselves and their families. However, if the economy is booming, then this will have a positive affect on the local residents, hence the businesses that would be gaining more profit. Therefore the developers need to ensure that the economic growth is either improved or mot affected by the development
Social investment: evidently the availability of reliable transport will involve the residents who want it to be fast, cheap and efficient if they are paying for it. The residents are also pleased to have a large hospital in the area. St. Mary’s hospital receives 330,000 outpatients annually.
Housing quality: if people are paying a large sum of money for their accommodation, they are in return expecting high quality standards so that the properties are worth their money, and the developers need to guarantee this is the case. As a result many residents would be happy with the development and it can therefore be judged sustainable.
Land use: some residents might not approve with the way the land is used by the developers and believe that it could have been done more economically and resourcefully.
Waste: I am positive that the local residents would enjoy it if their area was clean, so they would certainly demand waste disposal bins in order to keep the area hygienic and maintain its attraction.
North Westminster Community School
As all the preceding stakeholders, NWCS has also acknowledged and is familiar with the distinctions between the social costs and social benefits that come as an outcome of this development. One of the social benefits is that the school gets revenues for moving to a new site - a developed and advanced building. In the summer of 2006, NWCS will be knocked down and as a result further businesses will have the opportunity to locate their outlets in the area. Thus this will encourage competition and end in more satisfied residents. Several people our group questioned, argued that as the school is changing location, they are pleased to say their children would possibly receive improved staff and education. The presenters of this group of stakeholders also informed the class that the construction on the planed academies has already started.
Yet the majority of people are not happy with the plans for NWCS and believe that the number of social costs outweigh the number of social benefits. Even though noise pollution is a short-term matter, their main worry as the students are finding it difficult to concentrate in lessons, which in the long run can highly affect their exam results that are much needed for their future. Due to the increased number of people in the area, it caused congestion and traffic delays which in the end resulted in students being late for their lessons. Consequently, this affected their day and also disrupted those who did manage to come to school on time. Unmistakably, this is a negative effect of the Paddington Basin Development. As I pointed out before, moving schools to a new and possibly a farther location, can cause an increase in travel cost to parents who have to provide to their children. This could, in the long run, mean that they would have less money to spend on other things such as leisure, and subsequently many local businesses might loose some profit. The fact that NWCS is worth £80 million shows that it has a great value. The school librarian stated that as the school is shutting down, it indicates that she would have to move her job, yet this includes all staff in the school, and is also a short-term matter as they would be provided with jobs elsewhere.
As our presenters stated, the overall, long-term effect of this development on the school is negative as the majority of people were not thrilled with the developers’ decision and understood that their plan was not safe, as it would bring many long and short-term disadvantages.
From my individual research I gathered from the Internet, I have discovered that the school’s main complaint was the dispute over the money they received. They claim they were given money as compensation, which they spent, on the new mobile classrooms and they declared that the developers would personally fit in new double-glazed windows. The developers however reject these claims and state they gave money for double-glazed windows. They also say they are looking into the matter.
With regards to quality of life indicators, I have previously discussed the air pollution and transport problems due to the constructions and an increased number of people using the area daily. Even though they are both short-term effects, these aspects naturally impact the students and their health. Additionally a climate change is another problem that might arise due to the increased road traffic and the emissions from vehicles and greenhouse gases. This can affect the future generations and because of this some might judge this development not sustainable. Another indicator is the education and training, which might be affected due to the closing down of NWCS. Yet the children would possibly receive improved education in their new educational institute.
Local businesses
The majority of the local businesses were not happy with the noise and pollution coming their way and some believe that it is taking away their regular customers, yet according to the article on the Internet; accounts indicate that they are actually receiving more customers due to the development and an increased number of people in the area. Several businesses also felt that they were not gaining much from this development and they too fear the future rent increases, which could be a long-term problem. Like the NWCS, some local businesses were calling for compensation, but once more this was judged irrational. Many businesses would like to see more clean-up trucks around the area as they feel this is deterring customers away from them.
This group cleverly divided into five in order to investigate five different areas: Bayswater, Harrow road, Edgware road, Paddington and Pread Street.
Edgware road: the presenter stated that the antique shops in Edgware road and Church Street were not affected by this development. They are aware that there are more people coming to the area and that this will widen the market, yet they believe not many other antique shops will be open. Therefore they fear no competition. As far as the businesses in this particular area are concerned, this region will not really be affected.
Bayswater: this presenter outlined the social costs and benefits to this area as a result of the development. The social benefits he mentioned were that there is a demand for further local businesses and this will boost competition. In addition the businesses have the initiative to expand and increase their market share, which once again will benefit the local residents. However, he also classified competition as a social cost to the businesses due to the fact that they will have to keep their prices lower in order to survive in the popular market and still maintain their competitive edge.
Pread Street: similarly, the researcher noticed that in this particular location there will also be an increase in the competition between the local cafes as they believe further will be opened. Additionally they are hoping to make Pread Street a two-way lane so that there is more space and less crowded travelling facilities. Additionally, there are 1.400 hotel rooms on Pread Street alone, showing that the area is quite popular and busy.
Paddington: the main benefit in this area is of course the Heathrow Express link, which is very fast and efficient, (you can get from Paddington station to the Heathrow airport in 15 minutes). The local residents are extremely happy with this new link as it is near them and very proficient; 15,000 passengers travel on the Heathrow Express each day. They are hoping to improve the controlling of people moving in and from the station in order to avoid crowds and certain unpleasant situations, as currently up to 10,000 people pass through the station every day. In this area there is going to be more room to expand the businesses and there will be more competition, as other retail outlets would wish to move to this well-liked location in order to improve their profits. According to the presenter and his findings, the supermarkets, such as Sainsbury’s, will be affected the most as they have the largest number of rivals wanting to open up in the area. Overall the presenter concluded that naturally different businesses would be affected differently due to the diversity in their objectives and aims for the future.
Harrow road: in this area the presenter stated that few local retail outlets fear the increase of competition and are not looking forward to the reduction of their set prices. However they are aware that with the competition they will possibly be obliged to improve their customer services which would overall increase their profits in the long run. Most of the businesses in this area do not mind the outcomes from the new development.
All in all, most of the local businesses will naturally be affected by the project and are hoping to gain many social benefits from it. Concerning the quality of life indicators, the owners of the local businesses commented on the economic growth and they believe it will boost the total output of the economy as a whole. Due to the rise in new coming rivals to the area, the competition will encourage the businesses to lower their prices, which would make the customers happier. As a result they would spend more money which would benefit those businesses and also their suppliers and other stakeholders involved. Furthermore, customer satisfaction would increase and thus the number of pleased customers.
ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS AND BENEFITS
The environmental issues which most affect the stakeholders are those regarding pollution and those concerning the use of materials that cannot be replaced. As public awareness of environmental issues increase, businesses need to take account of these subjects in their business strategies. Environmental costs on the business might include restrictions on disposing of waste or on emissions from any manufacturing process. This might have a cost in finding alternative disposal methods for waste, or having to introduce expensive filtering systems. These are regulated by law in order to protect the general public.
Other environmental costs might arise as a result of public opinion. For instance, it may not be illegal to cut down the rainforests in pursuit of the business aims, but it may not be wise if there is a large body of public opinion opposed to it. This might mean that the supply of the raw materials needs to change, which could have cost or availability implications.
As a result of the Paddington Basin Development, it is recognised that the area suffers from environmental and commercial problems such as:
- Poor environment with graffiti and traffic congestion
- A problematic pedestrian visitor movement and way-finding
- Poor commercial performance with a number of small shops being specialists in nature and competing with a greater range available at Paddington Station.
These are the Paddington’s priorities and projects they wish to improve or get rid off.
Evidently the Paddington Basin Development will have major impacts on the surrounding environment, which the developers took into consideration prior and during the planning process. I understand this is one of the main reasons they needed the support of the council as well as the other stakeholders who will too be affected by the project.
Chelsfield plc is one of the supporting development companies who are focusing on delivering large scale urban regeneration projects, in this case the Paddington Basin Development. The developers find there is direct relationships between community engagement and the creation and maintenance of high quality environments success, and they also believe it is important how the developers and their organisations approach the environmental issues. For instance air pollution and building noise are known to be problems arising from this development and to reduce it the developers have limited hours they can work on building sites, so that the health and natural peace of the residents is not disturbed and damaged to the maximum.
The developers are aware that land is a scarce resource and should be used carefully whether for public or private purposes. They claim that the increasing values are an indication of how important land has become to individuals, businesses, communities and to society as a whole. Economic growth and prosperity places more and more demands on this precious commodity. In this case economic growth will possibly be affected and reduced due to the constant use of the resources. The developers therefore need to devise a plan which would not harm the increase in the total output of the economy.
The developers recognise the strong link between a healthy and high quality environment and commercial and socially vibrant places. As stated on the Internet, the developers promote environmental awareness amongst staff, consultants and tenants, and within the community in which they operates (the local residents and their views). They have naturally committed to specific policies in relation to environmental quality and natural resources. Like everything else, this development has its environmental costs and benefits. The environmental benefits considered by the developers are:
- They believe the development will provide overall positive contribution to the local natural environment and ecological resources
- The properties they own, and therefore control and manage are clean, healthy and one the development is finished – attractive and aesthetically pleasing
- The Basin will appear more attractive and also the river, newly built bridges, parks and other facilities will all add to the natural look of the environment
- The activities of the developers are not detrimental to the local natural environment and they ensure that where significant negative effects are identified, they are mitigated and reduced.
- They ensure that risks of environmental impact arising from the development are minimised through appropriate management and assessment processes. Thus they believe this is a benefit to the environment as they are dealing with the situation quickly and efficiently before it damages the environment.
- They are ensuring that natural resources such as water, are harnessed beneficially and overall energy efficiency is optimised through choice of design and the location.
Some of the environmental costs considered by the developers are listed below, yet most of these issues are measured as short-term effects:
- Noise – evidently the increase in building and constructing is causing a rise in noise pollution, which is disturbing the local residents and businesses, who naturally complain. Yet, the developers claim this is short-term effect and will not exist once the development has been finished.
- Environmental pollution – as there are more people visiting the area everyday this is causing an increase in pollution due to the litter dropped on the ground. This is a short-term matter, as the developers would like to (with the help of the Council) to invest into further disposal bins in order to keep the area clean and inviting.
- Air pollution - once again due to the increased number of people in the same area, there is a need for additional travel and traffic causing the air pollution.
- Congestion – as the traffic levels have augmented, it has resulted in more congestion, which is causing the delays and annoyed residents. Also crowded areas are an issue to the residents who are not used to too many people in their area. The developers are aware of this fact and they are also hoping it will be reduced once the development has been finished.
- There are some damaged sites as a result of the development, as some buildings had to be knocked down, eg NWCS, which is ending in a change in the environment that not many people are happy about. The developers are hoping the new, advanced area will change the views of these people.
The developers strongly agree that this is a sustainable development, as the environment is not highly harmed by the project. Throughout the development process steps are taken to ensure that the environment is protected. They argue that this project will bring more benefits than social costs and therefore feel that it will not harm the future processes and generations. With regards to brown field sites, the developers are naturally looking to improve them too by constructing many new attractive buildings, bridges. They also need looking after like the environment and the developers are looking forward to an advanced and attractive area.
In order to minimise these costs that do exist many actions can be taken. Firstly, water use is kept to a minimum through an automated rain detection system. Only biodegradable pesticides are used and pesticide containers are recycled. Work on the estates management is a year – round activity, and all organic waste material, such as grass and tree cuttings, is composed for re-use on site.
At Paddington, in partnership with British Waterways, Chelsfield has made extensive environmental improvements to the previous derelict and inaccessible basin of the Grand Union Canal. In January 2000 the canal was drained and more than 20,000 fish were transferred to an adjacent habitat. The basin has since been refilled. Chelsfield has also created a new towpath around the basin and new mooring facilities for a mixture of leisure and business vessels.
The developers also aim to, where possible, reduce, re-use and recycle waste and ensure that all waste is disposed of responsibly. Additionally, they continually reduce water consumption and, where it’s viable – recycle water. Furthermore, the developers avoid the use of hard woods and other materials that derive from, or impact on, sensitive and non-sustainable ecological resources.
The developers can directly influence on the environment through:
- Design briefs
- Contractual procedures
- Building and operational management
- Training of staff
They can also influence the quality of the environment indirectly through:
- Consultation and developing community awareness
- Developing awareness amongst tenants
- Choice of consultants and contractors
- Leading by example
The developers’ main environmental initiatives are:
- Drain/improve Basin
- New tow-paths and canal buildings
- Three new pedestrian bridges
- Traffic management improvements
- Public realm
- Public art
- Brownfield site development
- Minimum parking provision for offices
PRESSURE GROUPS
One of the external constraints of the Paddington Basin Development are the potential environmental pressure groups.
Pressure groups may become involved in the interpretation of what is ethical or moral. Pressure groups are organisations formed by people with a common interest who get together in order to further that concern and influence opinion and policy. The developers of this project need to ensure that they do not offend powerful pressure groups throughout their activities.
Major pressure groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have been instrumental in changing the attitudes of both consumers and businesses. They have run major campaigns against, for example, nuclear waste discharges, genetically modified food, etc. Often the fact that they raise public awareness of an issue will be enough to change opinions. As opinions change, so do patterns of demand. Businesses and development organisations such as the Paddington Basin Development need to be aware of changing patterns and alter marketing to suit them.
The environmental and non-profit making objectives of any business are driven by pressure groups that represent public opinion about issues such as the environment.
Each pressure group has its own history and particular circumstances surrounding its formation and there are several factors that are important in determining whether pressure groups develop or not. When a group of unorganised people are adversely affected by a certain change, like this development, it suggests that pressure groups form when the need arises. This is why for example, when the Council attempted to regulate an economic activity, those affected will try to persuade the Council and the developers not to take actions that would negatively affect them. Yet for a pressure group to be successful the leader must convince its members that the costs of the development outweigh the benefits.
Despite the fact that momentarily there are no pressure groups created as a result of the Paddington Basin Development, there still is a great possibility that they will be formed. As I mentioned previously, every project, small or large, will have its social costs and benefits, and it is bound to, in some manner, have an impact on the environment. As an outcome of these costs and drawbacks, many people from the general public who are passionate when the environment is concerned, will be dissatisfied and might try to protest in order to protect their environment and surroundings. This is how pressure groups could be formed. If a great number of people show their worries and disappointment they will ultimately join mutually to influence others with their common beliefs, so that they demand changes and improvements in the business’s project and processes.
If pressure groups were formed, there are certain aspects of the development that they would consider environmental costs and benefits. For instance, environmental costs might include:
-
Noise: evidently, there will be an increase in the amount of noise coming from the development during building. This is clearly a negative side of the development as it disturbs the natural peace of the environment that can be extremely essential to many people. However, this is a short-term effect, as the noise of the construction and the developers will lessen once the project has finished.
-
Pollution: there are two types of pollutions that can be mentioned here, air and environmental pollution. I believe that this is a major concern to the public and could be an enough reason to trigger them to form a pressure group. Air pollution has augmented due to the increased number of people moving to and fro the local area, who use some sort of transport to get there. This is causing the pollution to increase and further frustrate the local public. However, they can decide to rate this as a short or long-term effect, because even though the air pollution will decline after the development has been completed, some people are aware that it will not utterly disappear. This is because, even after the building process, the average number of people who are obliged to come into the area, is increased. Another negative aspect arrives from this, which is the rise of crowded areas in the surroundings. This is evidently an environmental cost that might be measured as a long or short-term effect, due to the different opinions of the people. The other type of pollution is environmental pollution, which is caused, once again by the increased number of people in the area who might throw litter on the ground. In addition, this can be measured as a long or short term effect, as even though the number of people will slightly decrease after the development is finished, it will still be a greater number compared to the prior average, before the development even started.
-
Congestion: many people need to use transport and travel to the area, which naturally increases the congestion and traffic delays. This could become to irritate many local residents and provoke them to form pressure groups against the development and the developers. Pressure groups would, I believe, find that traffic delays are a short-term worry and might trust the developers with their decision. Nonetheless, some might find this a long-term problem and protest in order to somehow influence the improvement the developer’s activity.
The pressure groups would also keep in mind the environmental benefits coming from the development. The look of the whole area and the environment after the development has been terminated will be improved and many people will much more enjoy living or working in the area. This is a long-term effect, as it would benefit the general public in the future. If the developers are looking after the water and its quality, the pressure groups will consider this to be a long-term benefit. Additionally, the bridges and new facilities included in the development will make the pressure groups happy as it would prove to them that the developers are also thinking about the environment and trying their best to overcome any problems and not cause long-term issues, yet to protect the environment from the start. I am aware that there will be a new park constructed for the general public. I think that this will improve the views of any potential pressure groups, yet they would expect the environment to be treated fairly and not to be destroyed by the people. If this does occur, they would keep protesting in order to persuade the Council or the developers to take action and protect the environment further.
If pressure groups were formed as an outcome of this scheme, it will certainly affect the developers and their organisations. They might have positive and negative impacts. The positive side of this might include that they would improve their processes and make more people happy and approve of their plan. Additionally, they would consequently be doing themselves a favour because it would give them good name and improve their reputation.
Yet, the unenthusiastic side to the developers from the formation of pressure groups is that it might ironically give them a bad name if many people are dissatisfied with the development and the developers are not doing much to stop this complaining.
It is likely that if the developers and their organisations are targeted by a pressure group, they will have to change their activities in some way. Apart from the costs they incur in doing this, they may also suffer from a tarnished reputation and lower sales. Where there is general public support the demands of pressure group are likely to be more effective. Invariably, the developers will weigh up the cost and benefits of any change. If they decide to accept the views of a pressure group they will attempt to turn it into a public relations exercise.
ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION
In recent years there has been an increasing emphasis on the environment. Citizens and governments have become more concerned about the quality of life. This has led to greater control on the creation of environmental waste and the way in which resources are used. Compulsory and voluntary regulations and legislation covering the environment have forced through changes in production methods. Increasingly, ‘green consumers’ are demanding new ways of producing goods. Naturally, the introduction of these new laws and legislations will affect business developments, such as the Paddington Basin Development, thus it will possibly constrain their activities. The new legislation can case an increase in social costs from the development, if the developers are not taking the issues seriously. For instance, they may need to pay extra for damaging the environment.
Sir Neville Sims, chief executive of Tarmac, the construction company, has publicly stated his commitment to the environmental concerns and has said that in the future businesses are unlikely to survive if they do not take environmental issues seriously. As a result, the developers of the Paddington Basin project will have to pay close attention to how their activities will impact the environment, and they should aim to lessen the negative effects.
Businesses are most affected by the environmental issues regarding pollution and those in relation to the use of materials that cannot be replaced. In the 1992 the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro brought together dozens of world leaders from both the developed and the developing worlds. The final statement of this conference became known as Agenda 21. This detailed the various targets for what is known as ‘sustainable development’.
- Sustainable development indicates that the environment is not harmed by the production or developments. Throughout this process steps are taken to ensure that the environment is protected.
- The use of raw materials should be limited, wherever possible, to renewable resources.
- Energy should be produced in a non-polluting manner. More renewable energy resources, such as wind, wave and solar power, should be developed, rather than relying on the burning of carbon fuels.
- Harmful emissions should be reduced and, where possible, cut out completely.
Many of these targets will be reflected in government measures. For instance, the government introduced the widespread sale of unleaded petrol; then in January 2000, leaded petrol (4 star) was withdrawn from sale within EU.
Legislation which is designed to control pollution and ‘make the polluter pay’ has been passed to try to make sure that businesses are paying all of their costs - not avoiding social costs of their business or industrial activities. If a company causes pollution while producing a product, then the cost of that pollution should be met by the business. Therefore, as this development is causing pollution, such as noise and environmental pollution, it is their duty to the government to pay for these social costs. Naturally, many stakeholder groups would complain and even pressure groups might be formed, thus it is vital that the developers of this projects do their best in regards to the environment and try to prevent the pollution to the best of their ability. For example, by working less in the weekends, which will cut down the building and noise pollution, or by displaying more dustbins around the area.
Policies to encourage one section of industry may, however, harm others. Policies designed to cut down the amount of traffic on the roads, particularly heavy goods traffic, should be of benefit to the rail freight industry. However, such policies, which include increases in road tax and fuel excise duty, may have a detrimental effect on the road haulage industry. If regulations are different in other EU countries, this might cause problems. Many road haulage contractors have threatened to register vehicles in EU countries where vehicle excise duty is a tenth of the levels in the UK. The existence of the Single European Market allows them to do this.
In 1999, the House of Lords ruled that organisations seeking to mine or quarry in new or extended sites would have their applications environmentally assessed before permission was granted. Permission is likely to be refused if a rare habitat is affected or if mining or quarrying would damage the environment. Similarly, the developers of the Paddington Basin Scheme required permission for their plans from the Westminster Council, so that their actions are not harming the environment.
With regards to the environment, the government has stressed that sustainable development is what is needed. This means whatever raw materials are used by business, they must not use them to extinction, e.g. trees, soil quality, water. The reason the government sets laws in this area is due to the fact if it is left to its own, the businesses and developments would fail to take account of the need for sustainability. As the environment tends to be seen as a free good because it is often not priced, it tends to be used up without consideration of the implications, e.g. congestion charge, where revenue is used to advance public transport, reduce congestion and improve air quality.
The environment has been the area of policy most affected by European Union regulations. The EU wants to create common environment standards for member states so that there is harmonisation of standards, e.g. with regard to vehicle emissions. Increasingly the UK has to implement environmental issues that conform to European requirements (e.g. with regards to tighter controls on water pollution, reductions in packaging and waste, vehicle emissions).
These laws are not always popular with businesses and their projects as they usually result in an increase in costs. However, businesses adopting strong environmental policies are often able to develop a competitive advantage over rivals that have poorer records. Additionally, most stakeholder groups will be pleased to see the developers paying attention to the environment; hence this would possibly decrease their social costs.
The three main responsibilities of the government is to ensure that:
- Some social and community needs are met
- Businesses do not damage the environment
- Businesses act ethically
For a business plan, such as the Paddington Basin Development, the developers are not only interested in the existence of certain laws and regulations, yet the practical implications that they have on the development. These implications might be constraints – where they may not be allowed to do something or are required to take particular action – or costs – where they need to pay to register or license something. For instance, pollution controls may mean that they need to adjust their development process or find a way of disposing any waste safely.
The environmental challenges to businesses are now well established. Regulation can be seen as a relatively quick and visible way of changing business’s behaviour. In the UK, the Environmental Protection Act – and specifically ‘integrated pollution control’ – has changed the basis of pollution regulation. Membership of the European Community also forces the UK to adopt Community standards.
The Environmental Protection Act 1990 was introduced to make provision for the improved control of pollution arising from certain industrial and other processes and to re-enact the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 relating to waste on land with modifications as respects the functions of the regulatory and other authorities concerned in the collection and disposal of waste and to make further provision in relation to such waste.
The Environmental Protection Act of 1990 created two systems for regulating industrial pollution. Integrated pollution control (IPC) allies to more than 5000 existing industrial processes with the largest pollution potential. It regulates all their releases to land, water and air. It is enforced by an Inspectorate of Pollution. The second system is enforced by local authorities and covers 27000 complex processes, controlling only emissions to the air. Under both systems operators have to employ the ‘best available techniques not entailing excessive costs’, to minimise releases of the most polluting substances, and to ‘render harmless’ all releases from their processes. This Act will have an impact on the Paddington Basin Development as the developers would have to follow strict rules regarding the environment. The Act was introduced with the intention of reducing pollution from industrial and other projects. Therefore the developers need to pay close attention to how their actions might cause damages and provoke stakeholders and pressure groups to object.
The Environment Act 1995 was created to provide for the establishment of a body corporate to be known as the Environment Agency and a body corporate to be known as the Scotish Environment Protection Agency and also to provide for the transfer of functions, property, rights and liabilities to those bodies and for the conferring of other functions on them. Additionally the Act aims to make provision with respect to contaminated land and abandoned mines.
The Control of Pollution Act 1974 – the entry or discharge to controlled waters of poisonous noxious or polluting matter, trade or sewage effluent or other matter is illegal unless exempt from control or authorised in terms of a permit by SEPA or other statutory authority.
In the late 1980s a new environmental law was passed in the United States. It did not require organisations to fix, install or clean up anything. All it obliged them to do was submit to the Environmental Protection Agency an annual list of the quantities of hazardous chemicals they had released into the environment. The aim of this law was to create a massive shift in power away from government and industrial regulation and towards the public. In Britain there is growing pressure for environmental auditing. The Environmental Protection Act has proved the way for further registers on industrial pollution, waste disposal sites, contaminated land and so on.
The developers of this project nee to be aware of all the rules and regulations under most of the existing environmental Acts. If the developers are harming the natural environment this would be considered illegal under these Acts and they would have to pay for the damage made. They would have to look into these Acts and what they demand prior to the developing process so that they are more familiar with the laws and regulations. In order not to upset the involved stakeholder groups, the developers are required to apply these rules to their development so that the negative impact on the environment is lessened.
PUBLIC MEETING – CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT
The different stakeholders will have opposed views about the changes to the development as expected. Some might agree on a few changes such as the increase in green areas and the reduction of traffic and transport in the area. The possible changes each of the stakeholder groups suggest would have different impacts on the development and of course other stakeholders.
Council
The council approves of the Paddington Basin Development as they were hoping to bring extra jobs and housing to the local area. Their main objective was to improve the community as a whole by advancing the local economy, the landscape and the actual appearance, as well as the opening of the new jobs which would thus improve the lives of the local residents and businesses due to the increase in jobs and income. The local council is pleased with the new facilities and encourages further ones, and also more affordable housing. This might mean that the developers would have to put their prices down. This will affect the developers as they might lose money in the long run.
Overall the council is happy to pursue the project and it encourages sustainable development. Like most stakeholders, the council is naturally concerned about the impact of the development on the environment. They would like to bring more waste disposals to the area in order to encourage cleaner surroundings. Additionally, with the intention of satisfying the residents, the council would also like to see more trees and green wild areas. This would make developing area more appealing and attractive due to its distinctiveness and rareness. I also believe this would boost the tourism industry in this area and many stakeholders would gain from this, e.g. local businesses and hotels. This indicates that the developers have gained a good reputation and are able to make further profit.
Furthermore, the council stresses wildlife and the process of photosynthesis are vital in the area for many reasons such as extra appeal and the natural production of plants and animals. The council claims that the area needs more affordable housing and residential areas rather than just business buildings. However, the developers have put a large sum of money into this development and this is one of the reasons the prices are higher than before. Additionally the Government supports the small corporations and restricted larger business as the rent increases. Also they believe that the green land, the parks and play areas are useful. With regards to housing accommodations, another fact the council judges essential is to increase the security of housing. As the houses are improved and are of higher quality the residents would demand their protection and insurance as they have paid a large sum of money for them.
Developers
As this is their development, the developers do not have major objections or particular wishes to change the development. They are proud of the new benefits the project will bring, such as new businesses that would boost the economy, increase in wealth and profits, leisure, entertainments. On the whole the developers believe that this is a sustainable development. They did however agree with other stakeholders that the development has a few drawbacks such as environmental and noise pollution, yet they argued that this is a short-term effect and will not effect the businesses and residents in the future. However, unlike the developers, other stakeholders obviously weight out the pros and cons of the development from a different perspective. For instance, the residents are extremely happy with their new attractive area and are looking forward to the new facilities offered, yet are not so pleased with the rent increases and are hoping to see more green areas (playgrounds etc.). In order to overcome the short-term costs arising from the development, the developers are doing their best to please the involved stakeholder groups and get their further support. For instance in order to reduce the air pollution and the building noise, the developers have cut down their construction hours so that less people are disturbed. Also, crowded areas have shown to be an issue, so the developers are trying to clear out all the unnecessary machinery used and are opening more blocked entrances so that the local residents and the passers by can move from place to place more freely. As an outcome this would make more people happier which in the end would make the development more desirable.
Residents
These stakeholders had a few complaints and concerns and they suggested a few changes to the development. They are aware of the new 30,000 extra people coming to the area and are not looking forward to the crowd. However some realise that the new housing would provide homes and larger spaces for the new residents, which would balance out the crowd and frustration. Additionally, most local residents are not pleased with the school closure, as they believe the school has its place in the community and wish for it not to be knocked down. Also the closure of the Bishop’s Bridge and the planed knocking down of Dudley House did not appeal to the residents as they believe that people have the right to stay in their home and not be disturbed, even if they are being paid to leave.
The local residents are not completely happy with this development and would naturally like a few details changed and improved. For instance they would like more affordable housing and rent, as they believe that the prices are too high; they are aware of the advanced quality but in the long run find that they might have to even leave the area where they possibly work in order to have more spare money. I believe this would cause disputes between the residents and the people they work for, as they would demand a higher income to be able to cover all their costs. As a result this might slow down the economic growth and the rate of spending. Some local businesses might strive and lose profit, as people would have money less to use. The residents would also like to see an advanced built up area, as it looks modern, rich and attractive. Yet they also highlight that this needs to be balanced with many green and wild areas where there is not traffic. Some residents would like to see more small businesses, as this would increase the competition, and thus lower the prices, encourage better customer satisfaction and bring wider choice of goods and services. They claim that if they cannot get cheaper houses they should at least get higher incomes or lower prices. As a result it would balance out the money they can spend and use. Another thing the residents would like is more coffee shops in the area, so they can use them when at work.
Businesses
Since 30,000 new people are entering the area, this would benefit local businesses, as they would provide extra profit with their potential/actual jobs. Higher income is likely to result in a boost in the economy. The area is vibrant and suitable for the businesses. Additionally the infrastructure and the new facilities are appealing. Some businesses would like less competition, however some would prefer the extra competition rather than the new unique businesses that could take their customers. Some local business would not mind more competition as this would end in more satisfied customers, however some do not look forward to new businesses in the market, as they do not want to lose their profits. Possibly some employees would like more parking spaces provided to the area where they work in if they are travelling to work by car, yet this would harm the environment as then many would be encouraged to travel by car.
North Westminster Community School
As the school is being demolished, naturally some of its staff, students and even local residents are opposed to this idea and would want to keep their school in the area where it is. However, as they know the developers plans for the school have been final, while they still work/study here they object to the noise and air pollution from the development.
Furthermore, instead of just knocking down the school and moving it to another place, these stakeholders suggested to the developers to make a new and advanced school in the same place as before. This is so they can at least feel that the school exists even though it is improved. Additionally, like other stakeholder groups the school would like more waste disposals in the area especially near the school, as the students tend to throw litter on the floor. As an outcome this pollutes the area and make sit less attractive and appealing, which can have many consequences for the developers, e.g. bad reputation.
Also the school would like to see more green areas as they believe it is healthier for the children, especially knowing that the school is situated right next to a motor way, which can be both dangerous and bad for their health due to the constant traffic.
Even though the school is not entirely happy with the plans for the development they still believe that it is sustainable, as it would benefit the future and the future generations. They think that these benefits would be more visible after the school has been demolished rather than before, as they would see the new improved area.
Naturally all the suggested changes by the involved stakeholder groups will in some ways affect the developers’ plans and the actual final development. In order to satisfy all the stakeholders, the developers would have to take into consideration all of their views and see whether they are reasonable for the development. For instance all the stakeholders wished for more green and wild areas to improve the look and the atmosphere of the local area. Therefore this would have an impact on the developers and their plans as they would have to possibly make a few small changes to include further green and play areas. For instance this could cause a financial loss for the developers, as they would be reducing the number of buildings constructed for office and housing space. As a result they would be losing profit from rent and property owners, and unfortunately the new green areas would not bring them a rise in profit, yet they would gain more satisfied stakeholders. However as the developers would be losing out on a great amount of profit that could have been obtained from these buildings, in return they might have to push the prices up on other facilities and buildings, which once again might cause unhappy stakeholders, residents and local businesses in particular.
Yet, to satisfy the residents, the developers might have to put their prices of housing lower, which as mentioned previsously, could mean that they would be losing some potential profit. Thus, they might be obliged to make a few sacrifices so that not much money is lost in the long run. For instance if the prices of housing accommodations are lowered, this would mean that they could have less money to spend elsewhere in the development, for example closed car parking suggested by the residents and the local businesses. With regards to school, the developers might lose good reputation if they knock down the school and the Bishop’s Bridge, as the majority of people are not happy with this plan. If the developers receive too many complaints, pressure groups might form and once again the developers might not be trusted in the future.
As many are complaining about the noise and air pollution, the developers had to cut their construction hours in order not to harm the health of the local residents and workers. As an outcome, this could have in the long run, slowed down the developing process, which could have cost the developers time and money.
Overall, the developers are under great pressure to satisfy most of stakeholders’ wishes and suggested changes and are aware this would impact the development as a whole. In order to make the development sustainable however and to get the stakeholders’ support, much more planning would be required with how to meet the suggested changes.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS
Even though the developers are generally proud of their development they are still aware of the short-term environmental effects that might concern the other stakeholder groups. For instance the complaints about the noise/building pollution made the developers realise possible solutions to this problem, such as the reduction of working hours during the week/weekend.
The developers argue that taller buildings are more useful as they provide more office/housing space. Although the local residents agree with this fact, they believe that shorter buildings should be constructed for environmental reasons; as tall buildings block the Sun, and thus the process of photosynthesis cannot take place, which ultimately damages the natural environment. As a result this can cause the decrease of plant and animal life. If the environment is seen to be damaging, it is possible that some pressure groups might form in order to protest against the development. As a result the developers might gain a poor reputation and many stakeholder groups will no longer support their development. Additionally, the development cannot be judged sustainable if it is affecting the nature and photosynthesis by building tall buildings.
The local residents also argue that NWCS is a part of this community and thus it is wrong to knock it down. The developers however disagree and that this space could be used for a better purpose. They are also aware of the potential pressure groups that might take action as a result of their disbelief in the sustainability of the development. As a result the developers would do their best to protect the environment and not cause any permanent and serious damages, as they aim for this project to maintain its name and sustainability. In order to keep the area clean and attractive, the developers and the council are suggesting an augment in public services such as the cleaning methods or waste disposal.
In order to improve the environment, I believe that all the stakeholders would agree that the developers should plan to put more trees and green areas with plants and wildlife in the development areas. The plants produce oxygen that we need for survival and they cannot be cut out from the area. Additionally, there is a traffic increase in the area so the plants and trees are needed to balance out the natural cycle and to provide cleaner and healthier environment. Furthermore, in order to reduce the spreading of exhaustion gases, more closed parking spaces should be built not to damage the plant and animal life in the area. I also think, this it is work investing into this idea, as it would also keep stakeholders happy and reduce the chances of pressure groups forming. With reduced exhaustion gases, the environment is automatically improved and of better look and quality. Another idea is to hire extra people to look after the area and the environment daily. This would keep the area clean and the local residents and businesses much happier.
Most of the environmental issues today are those concerning the use of materials that cannot be replaced. The developers of the Paddington Basin Development need to take into consideration to use those building materials that can be recycled, such as plastic or different types of woods. However plastic is a dangerous material as it is not biodegradable and it can therefore cause problems for the developers and other stakeholders in the long run. The developers want to use materials that are environmentally friendly so that they do not harm the environment.
Additionally, it is vital that they consider different sources of energy, renewable and non-renewable, in order to protect the environment to the best of their ability and also not cause any further complains from the stakeholders and possible pressure groups.
Renewable energy is energy produced from sources that will remain indefinitely, such as sunlight, wind, tides, flowing water and harvested crops such as wood, as opposed to non-renewable sources such as fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas). It is the consumption of these non-renewables that has caused more environmental damage that any other human activity. Therefore with the intention of not harming the natural environment and not producing any extra cost and taxes, the developers are obliged to use the renewable sources of energy. For instance in the new constructed buildings for housing and offices, solar power can be used to generate electricity, as this would protect the environment from harmful emissions that can be produced from energy generated from fossil fuel such as gas. Electricity generated from fossil fuels lead to high concentrations of harmful gases in the atmosphere. As a result of this, many problems faced today are the ozone depletion and global warming. This is an extremely important fact that the developers are considering, as they wish to reduce these emissions and protect our atmosphere. Furthermore they are aware that if this continues and if their development is the reason behind an increase in harmful emissions and global warming, then their project will not be judged sustainable as it is effecting the future generations and developments. Due to this threat, many businesses today are facing severe increases in energy costs; taxes are imposed on every industrial and commercial business.
On the other hand, renewable sources of energy cause fewer emissions and are also available locally. The main types are wind power, solar power, water and nuclear power. They reduce chemical, radioactive and thermal pollution, and also stand out as viable source of clean and limitless energy.
CONCLUSION
As we have previously seen, the different stakeholder groups will have opposed views of the development. All the stakeholders would consider different quality of life indicators that concern them the most and try to conclude whether this development is needed and more importantly whether it is sustainable.
For instance, the local residents would pay attention how transport and traffic is affected by the development. They would naturally complain about the air and noise pollution, and the traffic congestions, as they have to live and possibly work in the local area. Despite the high probability that the developers are aware and might agree with these constraints from the project, they would argue that these are short-term effects and would not harm the future, which indicated that it is sustainable.
Other stakeholders, such as the Council for instance, would be concerned with other quality of life indicators such as the water quality in the rivers, how wildlife is affected, waste and waste disposal, etc. if these aspects are taken care of, once again the development would be judged sustainable, as the developers are paying attention to the environment. On the other hand, from the research we conducted, the local residents and businesses showed to be less pleased with the rent increases. As the area is being advanced, the prices of housing and rent for business buildings and space are also rising. The local residents stress how crucial it is that the housing quality is high if they are willing to pay the money asked for it.
Yet both of these stakeholder groups agreed that this project would increase the economic growth, as it would introduce many new jobs with higher incomes. Thus the profits of the local businesses would boost.
In order to judge this development fairly and more accurately, it is worth using quality of life indicators to assess its sustainability and desirability.
Economic growth – as there are more business and more people moving into the area, naturally with additional job offers many people will have extra money to spend and as a result total output of the economy would increase. All the stakeholder groups would agree that by analysing this, the development can be judged sustainable and therefore desirable.
Employment - there is more office space – more people have the opportunity to work despite their age. Once again this indicates that the development is both needed and sustainable, as it would improve the future generations and their employment.
Health – naturally from the development, gasses from traffic and cars would cause air pollution, which would consequently damage health of some people. Therefore this can be said to be a short-term effect or long-term effect, which indicated that the development is not sustainable and therefore not desirable.
Housing quality – the housing quality has been improved and due to its higher quality it is more expensive. More owners demand insurance, because if the properties are very valuable they need to be insured in case of floods, robberies etc, and it can be said that many judge this as sustainable.
Climate changes – emissions of greenhouse gases might affect future generations and their health. Therefore they might judge this as not sustainable and naturally less desirable.
Land use – the stakeholders all agree that there should be balance between greenfield and brownfield sites and that close attention should be paid when using the land because it is a natural resource.
As the benefits of this development outweigh the drawbacks, all the stakeholders would finally agree that the project is sustainable and will be useful in the future where many people will be satisfied. Thus it can be said it is desirable as it brings many advantages to the area and people who live/work there.
Overall, I believe that most of the stakeholders would judge this development sustainable. Naturally, there would be a few, such as the teachers from NWCS, that might object to the idea as they have to move their jobs, and the potential pressure groups that might form due to the damage of the environment. Naturally, pressure groups would like a few thing altered to the development. I believe that they would be most concerned with the environment. Therefore they might want to influence the developers to pay more attention to this. They might share many of the views with the local residents. For instance they would want more waste disposals, shorter buildings (so photosynthesis is able to take place).
I agree that this development would bring many benefits to the stakeholders in the future. It would improve the look of the area, increase job offers; provide more comfortable and desirable housing accommodations. All in all, the proposed development would improve the area and it can therefore be said that it is needed, yet if not looked after this project can no longer be said to be sustainable.
In order to ensure that this development is sustainable, the developers need to be aware of all the relevant quality of life indicators, as they will measure up all the pros and cons of the stakeholders. According to the quality of this task, the developers can judge this development sustainable/not sustainable. Additionally, if the developers take these indicators and the opinions of eth stakeholders seriously, then the development would undoubtedly be judged desirable.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
In order to show how and where we attained the information we used in this assignment from, we are obliged to list and evaluate all the sources and comment on how helpful each of them were.
Meeting with the manager of public relations, Paddington Basin Marketing Suite
This information can be said it was slightly subjective because of his involvement with the development and his intention to promote their actions, I would agree that it is quite reliable and trusty due to the fact that the presenter had a great knowledge about the development and the information we received was indeed helpful. It was easily accessible as the meeting was arranged previously and we gained a lot of interesting details concerning the project.
Jenny Greenwood, Head of Early Childhood Service, (stakeholders)
As I collected this information from the Internet, it was quite hard to find exactly what was intended due to the excess information always provided by different websites. However, once I reached it, I was very pleased and I believe the information is very reliable. Jenny Greenwood is looking at the project from her perspective as a head of Early Childhood Service. I think her views are objective because if the parents and the local residents were not happy with the development she would be obliged to say this. I feel she is neutral and does not have biased opinions towards the developers or the residents with children. Naturally she would want them to enjoy their new area.
Presentation by Edward Fox, British Waterways,(environmental costs and benefits)
I consider this information was very easily accessible as the presentation was organised successfully and it was very useful. The information given by the presenter was I believe reliable and trustworthy as he has direct involvement with the developers. Possibly this is the reason it can be slightly biased as he wants to promote their project and his company’s involvement to us.
AVCE Business Studies, Sir Neulle Sims, (environmental legislation)
I had easy access to this information as it was found in our A2 book for Business Studies. I believe that as a chief executive of a construction company he is obliged to be concerned and pay attention to environmental impact. I do not think his statement was biased as he shows his concern for the environment from any project not only Paddington Basin Development. This information is quite reliable because the book is a new updated edition, thus I believe it can be trusted.
,Environmental Acts,(environmental legislation)
This information was incredibly hard to reach. The Internet website gave far too much detail and it was difficult to edit and take what was important and relevant to me. I believe it was however reliable and not biased because it does not change in much detail. The information about Environmental Acts remains the same for a long time.
A-Level Business by Susan Blanch and Neil Denby, (environmental legislation)
This was easy to attain as the information was placed in the book I use regularly for A2 Business Studies. Additionally, I think it is reliable, as it is once again a new updated edition. I feel it was objective because the information given was not directly related to this project yet it was general information that can be linked to different aspects.