John Marwood
I ♥ cryptic crosswords
It's never about the right thing
It's about the right thing for the few
It's about the right thing for the few
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
There is a map showing wildlife where their bit is, though it may need to be illuminated for nocturnal species.
Map board at Doxey Marshes, just north of Stafford town, England. by Futurilla, on Flickr
I am not really sure we have a lot of Curlew in the area.This smacks of someone mugging someone for their wallet, taking all the notes and throwing a few loose coins back at the victim, expecting them to be grateful. And yes you do find wetland migratory birds in the middle of dry grassland:
I am not really sure we have a lot of Curlew in the area.
Migration should probably be in the Leave or Remain thread.....We do get Curlew, mostly on migration.
As I have already mentioned earlier, wildlife tends not to pay any attention to arbitrary lines drawn up by humans. The proposed development will both take away an area the wildlife currently uses and increase disturbance to the adjoining areas. You are right to point out the houses etc. bordering the reserve; I'll throw in the M6 and railway as well. These have all squeezed the wildlife into an ever decreasing area. However, that is no excuse to destroy part of what remains. I would counter that it makes it more important to protect what is left.
Migration should probably be in the Leave or Remain thread.....
http://www.staffs-wildlife.org.uk/species/curlew
"Between 1994 and 2006, there was a 37% reduction in the number of breeding curlew in the UK, with declines even higher in certain regions. This significant decline is mirrored by many of our wading birds which have suffered immensely from changing agricultural practices, land drainage and development. The Wildlife Trusts are working with farmers and landowners to promote wildlife-friendly practices. We are working towards a 'Living Landscape': a network of habitats and wildlife corridors across town and country which are good for both wildlife and people. You can support this greener vision for the future by joining your local Wildlife Trust."
Interesting that the species map on the wildlife trust website link provided does not indicate Curlew in the area.
I guess it is true to say that any time you build anything you take space that something uses. All suggestions to move to a greenfield site elsewhere are equally going to have the effect of building on something. I have seen suggestions to build new changing rooms and additional parking at the current site to have 2 sets of buildings. These would have to go on an area which is currently hedges and adjacent to a well used water culvert. Parking would be still across a road which has already seen at least one child struck by a car. Or go out of town by miles as some suggest and generate thousands of additional car journeys, increased potential for accidents and reduced ability to access by cycling or public transport. Others suggest using other facilities in town - there is no capacity anywhere on additional facilities and national planning does not allow reductions in playing fields so new ones need to be built anyway.
I am not suggesting this is not a complex issue but it is not as one dimensional as some seem to suggest. A key priority must be surely to provide accessible quality sporting and community facilities that support participation in Sport for youngsters, in a location that is in a safe and accessible
I guess it is true to say that any time you build anything you take space that something uses. All suggestions to move to a greenfield site elsewhere are equally going to have the effect of building on something. I have seen suggestions to build new changing rooms and additional parking at the current site to have 2 sets of buildings. These would have to go on an area which is currently hedges and adjacent to a well used water culvert. Parking would be still across a road which has already seen at least one child struck by a car. Or go out of town by miles as some suggest and generate thousands of additional car journeys, increased potential for accidents and reduced ability to access by cycling or public transport. Others suggest using other facilities in town - there is no capacity anywhere on additional facilities and national planning does not allow reductions in playing fields so new ones need to be built anyway.
I am not suggesting this is not a complex issue but it is not as one dimensional as some seem to suggest. A key priority must be surely to provide accessible quality sporting and community facilities that support participation in Sport for youngsters, in a location that is in a safe and accessible
Are you the new voice of the council, MAL? You're contradicting yourself, so it seems likely. Let's face it, the only reason this application was ever considered is because Lord Sta££ord wants to get richer.
I won't elaborate too much on the points that @The Hawk has already, excellently, made, but just to reiterate Natural England's actual position -... this has been agreed by Natural England... So I ask you to accept the opinion of the national body responsible for these things - this seems reasonable to me.
It seems that both you and the case officer for this application have made the same mistake of misreading 'strong' as 'scant'.Natural England, as stated in previous correspondence, is not in a position to give a view on issues such as local sites, local landscape character or the impacts of the development on species or habitats of biodiversity importance in a local context. We would therefore urge you to have strong regard to the comments of the local wildlife trust in relation to wider biodiversity impacts.
Some of us have known from the start that this is a done deal
However nature has always found a way to correct a wrong
What is not known is how is this correction will occur
I don't like this application. I think the reasons for siting it here are unsound. I think there has not been transparency regarding the involvement of a rugby club director and his role at the council and their support for this. And yes - Lord Staffords interests seem to be the real interest.
BUT I think it is pathetic when someone comes on to the forum, puts an alternative view, and is then accused of being the new voice of the council.
It's an important issue. Make sure sensible objections are made as part of the planning application. BUT PPPPPP grow up and change your tune because it detracts from the imporant stuff.
I won't elaborate too much on the points that @The Hawk has already, excellently, made, but just to reiterate Natural England's actual position -
It seems that both you and the case officer for this application have made the same mistake of misreading 'strong' as 'scant'.