Special Protection Areas | |||
Comment submitted by HC Cllr Eric Neal Aldershot East to SEERA (South East England Regional Assembly) via Hampshire County Council on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Consultation Draft Interim Strategic Delivery Plan. | |||
Comment submitted by HC Cllr Eric Neal Aldershot East to SEERA (South East England Regional Assembly) via Hampshire County Council on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Consultation Draft Interim Strategic Delivery Plan. We all know one of the pleasures of living in Rushmoor is that there are vast tracts of military own land nearby which we the general public have access to. Much of this Heathlands around Fleet and Aldershot/Farnborough, and in adjacent parts of Berkshire and Surrey, are home to internationally important populations of three species of bird (Nightjar, Dartford Warbler and Woodlark). These areas of land, known collectively as the Thames Basin Heaths, have been designated under the European Habitats Directive as a Special Protection Area (SPA) At the moment these SPAs are protected by a perimeter zone with a width of 400 metres, the maximum distance a domestic cat travels from its home in its search for prey. Therefore no further residential development is permitted in this zone. This measure does not take into consideration natural barriers to the cat such as canals, rivers, roads, railways and motorways. Surely when you apply planning legislation you should be flexible and take into consideration local conditions, regretfully this zone does not. |
|||
Numbers of magpies have tripled over the last 30 years, and they now occur commonly in areas where they were once absent. Click here for more info |
|||
At 6.3 it admits that impenetrable barriers make access by cats extremely unlikely. Example would you say a busy ‘A’ road (are any A Roads not busy in the South East?) is a natural barrier for a cat? Part of the A325 on Aldershot’s border has the SPA on one side and the 400-metre zone on the other. Very few householders near this road have cats, Why? Because crossing the A325 they are regretfully guaranteed to be killed, yet the zone is still applied Bonkers! What are now proposed are further draconian measures to protect the 3 species of bird and to maintain the population. Access to these areas by the public for whatever reason will be restricted to defined paths and dog owners must keep their dogs on the lead. I for one take my dog once a day; time permitting to one of the areas near me about 2 miles away. Yes I drive there, along with hundreds of others who do the same. Nowhere in this consultation document is any sound evidence produced that current access to these areas by the public has any adverse effect on these birds? |
|||
Be careful - they might fight back |
|||
No mention at all of the effect on these endangered species of the excessive numbers of foxes and magpies, which inhabit my local SPAs. Before we consider restricting access by the public surely research should be carried out into this first. Maybe a cull is needed on these excessive numbers of foxes and magpies, which in my opinion are destroying these 3 species of bird but of course to say that is not PC. It is suggested Rangers will be recruited I presume by the local Council and they will police these SPA designated paths etc. But first a SPA project team will be established consisting of 5 people for the Thames Basin area. All paid for by a new development contribution, in other words another tax on new housing. Since the underlying intention is to restrict access by the public to SPA areas, land will also be provided funded from this new tax within 5 kilometers of an SPA for similar recreational purposes. These areas are referred to in the document as Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). |
|||
Mmmmm... | |||
Rushmoor because of its location to SPA’S will be virtually covered by the 5km zone. How high is this new tax going to be to provide sufficient land over any reasonable amount of time to compensate the public? It could take years! Bonkers. Exceptions or reductions to this tax are proposed: -
What will developers do to avoid or reduce this tax? It is obvious they will try and meet the above criteria. This means in Rushmoor we will build flats rather than houses, restrict car parking spaces so new home owners will be forced to travel by public transport and the new developments will be devoid of pets. I do not travel by public transport only to London; my 2 daughters age 20 and 21 all drive cars why should I try to restrict others? What disturbs me most is that planning guidance from Central Government is already imposing much of the above. It is a fact that the average new house build in the UK has the lowest livable floor space compared to the rest of the EU and the adoption of this document particular in Rushmoor will only make matters worse. In Rushmoor what should be happening to meet other Government guidelines on green house gas emissions, is to cut work travel times and thereby also reducing congestion. In this Borough we have many high paid jobs where the recipients commute in. The reason for this is because we have a lack of quality executive housing, that is what we should be building, where is the joined up thinking? The real issue, if we restrict the way of life many people now expect, is that the young skilled professional will move to pastures greener and it may not be in the UK. So in the coming years we will not be able to provide many of the services, which we now take for granted and we all know at this moment in time we are struggling to provide There are 73 SPAs in the UK and all the above stems from a directive from Europe and SERRA’s and therefore the Governments interpretation of it. In a speech to the Natura 2000 Conference at Tuczno, Poland on 25th August this year, the EC Environment Commissioner, Stavros Dimas, concisely explained the context for development in relation to European protected sites. When Stavros Dimas spoke was he particularly thinking about one of the most heavily populated areas in Europe, which is beset by a massive 200,000 + net immigration per year as well as a unknown number of illegal immigrants? I do not think so, as far as I know a scale of immigration not currently experienced by any other European Country. This document talks about educating people, the British are not stupid Stavros Dimas is a Greek, what is there record on bird protection? Conclusion I hate to think how much time and effort went into producing this consultation document, which is 53 pages long, what a waste of public money! I myself have just spent 2 days of valuable time on these papers; most of the conclusions are not based on research only on someones wishful thinking; yet it is out for consultation? Before this document was drawn up there should have been an independent study as to why in this area these 3 species of bird are under threat? My deduction is, as I have already said for someone that does walk in these SPAs areas, it is obvious what the problem is too many foxes and magpies. Did anyone from this area go to these workshops and if they did, do they use the SPAs for leisure purposes? Regretfully the thought of a cull of these destructive pests and evoking the animal rights movement is the last thing on these people’s minds, wimps. But there again look at the people that attended the workshop in Reading hosted by the Regional Assembly and Natural England, professional land management and planning representatives. You do not need to say any more all living in their own little silos, not an elected person in sight. On a number of occasions this document refers to the assessors report, it appears he or she did not agree with some of the conclusions. A noticeable one is at 8.2.3 why is it felt residential newcomers would not adopt similar patterns of visitation to SPAs than more established residents near them? Wake up and smell the coffee. What is clear is that none of the people that wrote this document including Natural England have even visited an SPA that is located on MOD land? On one of the SPAs near Aldershot the MOD have just fenced a great deal of it off but still allowing access through foot gates for the public. They intend it appears to keep highland cattle on it to keep the grass down for the troops when training. Of course there is not much training because most of the time they are away fighting Blair/Brown’s wars. The end result if this nonsense if implemented is that these birds will still be under threat and I for one believe in conservation. If these predictions on climate change materialize what effect will this have on these endangered species? No research into this at all, a completely flawed document and an insult to people’s intelligence. In actual fact I think there is a hidden agenda here, how do you not build in the South East and particular the Thames Basin on all the areas of countryside which forever reasons are protected and still meet the massive need for new housing? Answer: build smaller, no gardens, no parking spaces, no pets, and minimal infrastructure. Just watch this space we did it to protect the birds? Frankly if this is ever implemented it will get so much publicity and evoke so much controversy more people might start visiting these SPA’s. At the moment locally not many people do visit them and for those that do, most of them only walk a few hundred yards into them. In the few instances where any research is referred to, this document admits that. The type of people that visit my local SPAs are frankly as a politician one of the last groups you would wish to upset. In the main they are comfortably off, the men mostly over fifty with time on their hands. Large numbers of course are woman all typically over thirty who do not appear to work but their husbands do, as you see them together at weekends. All are taking their much-loved dogs for a walk; I would think it would be political suicide for a politician to upset this bunch. What has happened is that someone decided to adopt Natural England’s three-pronged approach outlined on page 21. They then wrote this consultation document around it, what a way to carry on. I will not be party to any of this, bin this document and recycle it. That would be the only useful thing to come out of this exercise. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the HCC officer that sent me a hard copy. Hampshire County Cllr Eric Neal 30/12/2007. Click here for the Consultation Document(.pdf 1.78mb) |
|||
Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area | |||
THAMES BASIN HEATHS SPECIAL PROTECTION AREA DRAFT INTERIM STRATEGIC DELIVERY PLAN CONSULTATION HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL: GENERAL COMMENTS (TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE) Click here(.pdf 48.6kb) |
|||
1. Introduction | |||
Hampshire County Council supports the general approach taken in the ISDP, in considering the impacts and ways to manage them across the wider area, so as to offset any impacts from the proposed development in the Thames Basin Heath area. The Council is also pleased to see that the proposals do not intend to restrict public access to the countryside. However, the County Council has substantial concerns about some key issues that must be addressed. These are developed further below and should be read in conjunction with the County Council’s response to the specific questions in the consultation questionnaire. How can Hampshire County Council help? Hampshire County Council has a number of initiatives and ideas due to the experience within the Council that may help with innovative ways of managing SANG land and associated Green Infrastructure. In partnership with Natural England, the Council is developing good practice based on an sound evidence base. Hampshire County Council would like to offer assistance in partnership with the relevant authorities with developing appropriate management practices for SANGS and the SPA, related to good practice. The County Council have established expertise and research which could be useful. |
|||
2. Specific Comments - 2.1 Delivery | |||
Implementation of the arrangements proposed in the ISDP and the delivery of the SANG land will require financial resources, specialist staff and a considerable lead-in time. They should not be underestimated. This means that it will be a considerable challenge to deliver the draft South East Plan’s 2006-2026 housing targets for the area, and any increase in those figures should certainly be ruled out |
|||
2.2 Funding | |||
The funding for the implementation of the ISDP needs to as flexible as possible. There needs to be a mechanism for funding the linking of SANGS and not just for the formation of new SANG land. Maintenance costing of different types of SANG land needs to be different according to habitat type. Such areas will always cost money to maintain – they will not pay for themselves. Further consideration needs to be given as to whether maintenance costs should be considered in perpetuity rather than the 80 years suggested. What is proposed to happen after 80 years? If the sites were redeveloped within the 80 year period, would the ‘clock start ticking again’? Funding over a longer timeframe needs to be considered, whilst being monitored and potentially modified on an annual basis There appears to be no mechanism to ensure the maintenance of land that is accepted for SANG use but retained in private ownership if problems were to arise. There needs to be means of ensuring financial security so that, if a developer or private SANG owner has financial or operational problems, the SANG can be maintained in good condition without putting an increased financial burden on the local authority. Community land trusts are one option. Public ownership of SANG land would be another way to ensure that it is maintained, and this would avoid potential difficulties of bankruptcy of developers. This would need to be set out in all LDFs so that developers were aware of the situation prior to applying for planning permission, and would be most effective if a standard planning condition were to be placed on all planning permissions which fulfilled the criteria. However, SANG land would need to be sufficiently funded to ensure that the public sector could take it on and manage it in perpetuity. |
|||
2.3 Classes of Development Affected (ISDP 1) | |||
Section 4.2 brings together the effects from informal recreational visits with unlawful and anti-social activities. This implies a relationship between these two activities without providing any supporting evidence. The passing reference to unlawful and anti social activities in the document serves only to be controversial without some further explanation. |
|||
2.4 Rights of Way | |||
Rights of Way are the key to linking SANG land and should be considered as fundamental to access provision in this area.. Most access is linear, not site-based and greater access could be provided through a well-maintained ROW network as an alternative to some of the proposed SANG land. The importance of the rights of way network to meet the needs of visitors to the SPA is not noted. Recent research indicates a strong correlation between the amount of rights of way available and their use; the greater the amount of footpaths and bridleways the more likely they are to be used. Whilst Hampshire County Council does not have the statistics for the whole of the study area, in Hart there is a high reliance on the footpath and bridleway network. An average 33.5% of Hampshire residents use footpaths and bridleways whilst in Hart this is significantly higher at 41.75% residents. The amount of rights of way in the district is higher than average but this is dominated by footpaths (80%) restricting activities to on foot only. |
|||
2.5 Visitor Management and Education | |||
SPA visitor management is inadequately addressed. There is currently open access on the SPA heaths (except where unsafe due to unexploded munitions) and this cannot change, therefore management needs to be very carefully considered. Furthermore the question arises as to how these management measures are going to be enforced, which will be a very difficult task in itself. At the present time it is already very difficult to enforce dogs being kept on leads from March to June. The ideal situation is where people are channelled into appropriate areas and therefore need relatively little management or enforcement when there. This can be easily achieved, however it can be relatively expensive as it may require capital expenditure This is a particular area where the funding for management etc needs to be more flexible than currently proposed, and this is one way of creating a network of sites rather than isolated pockets of recreation space. There appears to be an assumption that all existing (parent) sites that are to be used as SANGS can only take extra visitors with the addition of extra hard facilities. This is already leading to a plethora of furniture, sign posts, hard surfaced paths etc. These all increase the urbanised park feel and away from the natural open space that the visitors to the SPA are trying to experience. Increased ranger presence and improved landscape management rather than more infrastructure would be a better way forward in many cases. Education is critical to the success of the ISDP. Implementation will need to be targeted and also ongoing over a number of years in order to change mindsets, not only of the ‘new population’ but also of the existing population. |
|||
2.6 Mineral Extraction |
|||
Development, particularly residential development, would generally be prohibited within the Exclusion Zone, and would only be permitted within the Zone of Influence if adequate mitigation measures were proposed to avoid damage to the SPA. However, the Busta decision indicates that mineral extraction might be acceptable if it results in the improvement of the SPA - for example by the replacement and subsequent restoration, of coniferous plantation by lowland heath through mineral extraction. As lowland heathland is underlain by sand and gravel deposits, and in view of the extent of this habitat (and therefore the SPA) and the need for aggregate production in north-east Hampshire, it would be helpful if the consultation document could clarify the position in relation to minerals-related development. |
|||
2.7 Research and Information | |||
The ISDP is based on a number of assumptions, namely:
Both seem to be reasonable, however the report does little to show the underlying research and information supporting these assumptions. It is understood that there are a number of studies that have been conducted in the preparation of this report - however these are inadequately referenced. In the case of the first statement it would be useful if the report gave a clear indication as to the current condition of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA resulting from the pressures. Additionally it would be helpful if the report could produce some figures relating to the current visitor numbers and the extent of the pressures. This would also provide a baseline against which any changes can be monitored and evaluated. The report does not make it clear how the additional recreational capacity of existing sites will be determined and whether this would form part of the 384 ha SANG figure The second assumption implies a direct relationship between the increase in population and an increase in demand for visits to the countryside. Whilst this may be true there are a number of subtleties that should be recognised and presented in the report. As well as a predicted increase in population in the TBH area there will be demographic changes that will have an influence on the extent and nature of demand for visits to the countryside. These demographic changes will in part be influenced by the nature of the development. As an illustration, an assessment of countryside recreation supply and demand in Hart District1 indicates that, whilst there is predicted to be a small increase (0.5%) in the population numbers in the district over the next twenty years, the actual demand for visits to countryside sites is likely to decline by around 3% . This is based on the current propensity for people to visit the countryside and the demographic changes forecast in relation to the draft South East Plan proposals. This is obviously not an exact science and is only a starting point as there will be a range of social, economic, environmental, political and technical factors that will also influence the propensity that people have for visiting the countryside. The report anticipates a population increase of 48,000 by 2016 and the quantity of SANG land required is directly related to this number, 8ha per 1,000 population. Clearly not all 48,000 will visit the countryside (in Hampshire an average 33% of residents visit a countryside site - including country parks - whilst in Hart District this is 36%). It is not apparent whether the SANG calculation takes this into consideration. If people are to be attracted to SANG land, further understanding about the factors that influence people’s choices would be useful. Recent research on the psychology of walkers with dogs and subsequent research yet to be published provides some valuable information on the factors that influence the decision made by walkers with dogs on where to walk. Hampshire County Council in partnership with the Kennel Club and Natural England has undertaken two key studies relating to influencing the behaviour of walkers with dogs in the countryside. The aim of the project is to investigate the needs and behaviours of dog walkers and test management approaches to optimise the benefits and minimise the negative effects of dogs in the countryside. HCC is currently reviewing the management of a number of its key sites in response to the findings in both studies. A more detailed paper outlining the current project is available from the County Council. |
|||
Produced by HCC, Environment Department, The Castle, Winchester SO23 8UD | |||
Regretfully Hampshire County Council as you can see from the above, basicaly believes that this is the right way forward in dealing with the conservation of 3 threatened bird species? This whole idea started with Natural England and the plan with a few changes is channeled through the democratic system and it is now being slowly implemented, which will affect peoples lives. How many people actualy know this is going on? Very Few! What do you think? Is this the right way forward? |
|||
To date July 2009 SEERA (South East England Regional Assembly) has now been replaced by the South East Council who send representatives to the South East Partnership Board, this board retains the staff from SEERA. | |||
Something to think about? |
|||
While the primary benefits to animals are obvious - to place them in loving homes and keep them from being destroyed - the benefits to elderly persons are ten-fold (versus non-pet owners). | |||
|
|||
In 1980, a clinical research project at Brooklyn College, New York, studied heart-disease patients after their discharge from the hospital. Dr. Erika Friedmann, Ph.D., professor of health and nutrition sciences at the College, tracked each survivor, studying their medical histories, lifestyles, families, relationships - every documentable detail. Co-researcher Dr. Aaron Katcher, M.D., reported: "The presence of a pet was the strongest social predictor of survival...not just for lonely or depressed people, but everyone - independent of marital status and access to social support from human beings." | |||
July 09 - The bureaucratic steam roller carries on. | |||
The different levels of developer contributions are now being calculated by local authorities for the provision of SANG land. As an example:- Guildford:- Studio nil, 1 bed dwelling up to £981, 2 bed dwelling up to £1271, 3 bed dwelling up to £1586, 4 bed dwelling up to £1904. Hart:- Studio nil, 1 bed up to £3612, 2 bed and 3 bed dwelling up to £6724, 4 bed dwelling up to £9725. |
|||
'Rabbit-hutch' Britain: UK's new homes are 'smallest in Europe' | |||
New homes in Britain are the most cramped in Europe with almost every other country in western Europe providing its citizens with more living space. In Denmark, newly-built homes have almost twice as much floor space as those built here in the UK. The main reason for the UK's cramped living conditions is the lack of building regulations regarding living space, according to experts. 'The cause is simple and shocking,' said award-winning architecture critic Ellis Woodman. Newly-built flats in Liverpool. Britons have to put up with the least floor space in Europe 'England and Wales are the only parts of Europe where house-building is unregulated by legally binding minimum space standards.' 'That oversight is all too indicative of the failure of successive British governments to ensure that we are well housed.' (extracts from The Mail Online 11th September 2008) |
|||
Runnymede:- Across the board £2000 per dwelling. Waverley:- Studio nil, 1 bed £978, 2 bed £1,314, 3 bed £1,874, 4 bed £2,135, 5 bed £2,785. Windsor and Maidenhead:- No strategy as yet Woking:- Studio up to £780, 1 bed up to £850, 2 bed up to £1150, 3 bed up to £1,520, 4 bed up to £1,750. Wokingham:- Figures are provisional, £3,266/£3,400. Bracknell Forest:- Across the board £1,536 per dwelling. Elmbridge:- Studio nil, 1 bed up to £1,509, 2 bed up to £2,264, 3 bed up to £3,144, 4 bed up to £3,522, 5 bed up to £4,528. Rushmoor:- No strategy as yet. It can be seen that the levels of contributions being collected vary considerably. This is generally related to the availability of suitable SANG land across the affected area and variations in the costs associated with bringing land up to a suitable standard. |
|||
Back to top |