This blog, prompted helpfully by reader Richard Wilson, attempted to spell out why the government’s proposed planning reforms are bad news for wildlife (click here but do read the comments as well as the blog). I don’t know how good a job I made of it but I haven’t found anything much better on the websites of our nature conservation organisations. However, it is worth looking at what each of the main organisations that deal with nature conservation, and some others, are saying on the subject.
National Trust – are clearly against the NPPF! They ask you to sign their petition, write to your MP and make your views known. There is a lot about people and places but nothing very obvious on nature and wildlife (I looked for longer than most people would but didn’t scour every NT word to find one about wildlife)
Wildlife Trusts – are clearly against the NPPF! I was glad to see this as I couldn’t find anything a few days ago. There is a clear statement about the threats to local wildlife sites, the lack of mention of the Nature Improvement Areas and a call to remove the primacy of development from the policy.
RSPB – are clearly against the NPPF! They don’t think it’s all bad – but they do think it is a danger to wildlife in the wider countryside and probably on SSSIs (read Simon Marsh’s interesting comments here). This latter point is very important. SSSIs don’t have complete protection – hardly anything does – so the worrying ‘presumption in favour of [sustainable] development’ may well tilt protection away from them (as hinted at, but not clearly spelled out I’m afraid, in the comments on this blog on 9 September). The RSPB would like you to respond to the government consultation on this issue.
CPRE – are against the NPPF! You’d expect them to be and they are. They want you to respond to the government consultation too.
Friends of the Earth – are against the NPPF! It’s not very obvious why they are against it but they are determinedly against it.
Greenpeace – doesn’t do this sort of thing, and that’s fine ‘cos they do lots of other really good things.
WWF – doesn’t do this sort of thing either.
Of these seven organisations, five are against the NPPF and two aren’t involved with the subject. Each of the five has slightly different reasons for objecting, and that’s fine. But it is clear that the two primary wildlife conservation organisations, RSPB and the Wildlife Trusts, are pretty sure that the government’s (the coalition government’s) plans are bad for wildlife. So that is pretty clear.
Does Natural England have anything to say on this subject? Not that I can see – that’s the way it is these days.
Maybe we shall hear something from the Labour Party at the Conference next week? Or have they swallowed all this guff about homes for poor people and planning being a brake on growth? Who is the Shadow CLG Secretary? It’s Caroline Flint and she has been saying some good things on this subject recently.
So, there is a well-informed coalition of views against the NPPF. I wonder what stunts they have planned for the Tory Party Conference the week after next?
But wait! What’s this? Simon Jenkins, the Chair of the National Trust (see above) writes in the Evening Standard that he’s had a little tour around north Kent and thinks it would make a good site for an airport! It’s a bit of a wilderness apparently and that’s just the type of place we need more concrete.
Now Simon Jenkins has a living to make but quite how he can lead the National Trust on a campaign to save the countryside and write in favour of losing a wilderness I really don’t know. I have no doubt that NT staff are furious at this latest blunder by their Chair (he has previous). I wonder what Dame Fiona thinks of the position that her Chair has put their organisation? It will be much more difficult for the National Trust to talk to government on this subject now – their Chair has made the organisation look foolish.
I wonder how the National Trust petition is getting along? And I wonder how big might be the petition to oust the Chairman?
[registration_form]
Not sure if I’m allowed to advertise another website – but my post on Save our Woods ‘A garden for everyone’ suggests some positive alternatives – and in particular celebrates the wonders of all that desolation in Kent – which RSPB is doing a fantastic job of turning into something really special, for everyone and hopefully for ever. Rainham is fantastic – and so is Cliffe Pools – I just wonder whether seeing Little Egret from Eurostar and Avocets whirling in front of a chugging Thames Dredger isn’t what 21st C civilisation could be all about – but first we need to wake up to valuing our natural environment at least as highly as our built one.
Communities in North Kent have been here before & every time it has been rejected. We find it sad that developers, the Mayor of London, his team & others are so ill-informed about the Thames Estuary and its internationally protected wildlife habitats. The whole issue of building an airport on the Hoo Peninsula was exhaustively investigated between 2001 and 2005 in the Governments Aviation White Paper & conclusively ruled out as an option. This decision was upheld by the High Court. No matter where you move the airport in & around the Thames Estuary the issues remain just the same. An airport would be too environmentally and ecologically damaging, too dangerous because of bird-strike, the aviation industry doesn’t want it & neither does the government. The successful ‘No Airport at Cliffe campaign’ brought a greater awareness of the Thames Estuary & Marshes, why they are so special & why they are protected under local, national & international LAW. There is a strong sense of community among those that live alongside the marshes. We look forward to the future; we see that the way forward is to share this magical wilderness, its sights & sounds with others who will come to learn about the wildlife, wander the footpaths, enjoy the tranquility & atmosphereand share our cultural heritage. This is truly a place of importance for future generations. Any attempt to build an airport within the Thames Estuary would be fought with relentless vigour! We are ever vigilant and continue to work alongside RSPB & others to promote & protect the North Kent Marshes.
And Simon Jenkins??!!
Gill – well Simon Jenkins seems to be writing off all the things that you and i think are wonderful about north Kent. I wonder whether the National Trust agrees with him or whether they have a different position. And he is ‘only’ a journalist so his views don’t have any clout except that they may encourage others (like Boris, perhaps) or they may indicate what others are thinking. Or they might be a momentary aberration. Who knows but I know you and other friends in north Kent will find it worrying.
I remember delivering those 300,000+ signatures to the Department of Transport last time around. I wonder whether we’ll have to ask those people; and more, again.
Let’s hope it’s just a newspaper article that will be wrapping Friday’s fish and chips and has no other significance.
As seen on panorama the other night, London to get 2 million more people with no water or electricity to feed in to the system. Some planning that!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8777913/David-Camerons-letter-to-National-Trust-in-full.html
PMs letter to the National Trust yesterday for interest – the Telegraphs interpretation is that he has now spelled out what ‘sustainable development’ is but I’m not sure I see it in his letter myself. And of course wildlife is still the elephant in the room – who knows, perhaps like Simon Jenkins he wouldn’t consider the Kent marshes part of “our beautiful British landscape”.
Chris – well said! I’m not sure that the government (which includes the LibDems) realises the impact of their plans on wildlife – NGOs need to bang this message home (and that won’t be NT – it’ll have to be the WTs and the RSPB). And there is clearly a view that provided the green belt and National Parks are OK then there is nothing going wrong in the countryside. Where do these people live? Which planet?
If I was being literal, the PM lives in Oxfordshire – so perhaps he should pay RSPB Otmoor a visit. It may not be the Lake District or the Cotswolds to look at from a distance, which is probably the kind of place they have in mind as worth protecting, but to wetland wildlife, it’s like an oasis in the middle Engliand desert – as you know from your former life I’m sure! And I fear it is these flat, ‘wastelands’ that the bulldozers will be eyeing up, as perhaps evidenced by the opinions SJ.
I agree that RSPB et al will need to keep banging the wildlife drum, and probably draw a distinction between their position and the Telegraph ‘Hands Off’ campaign – our voice needs to be one of NITBYism, not NIMBY as the lapwings, redshanks, otters (saw my first wild otters on Otmoor last winter – three at once – worth any amount of economic development to me), brown hairstreaks, etc, can’t speak up for themselves.
Chris – well said. Yes, Camo’s constituency is Witney so he should pop in to Otmoor and see the landscape that inspired Lewis Carroll to write ‘Alice through the looking glass’.
I like NITBYism!
The otters’ return – worth a fortune indeed.
Hmmm…. Sounds like NT is really about People and their man-made mansions rather than our Natural heritage inclusive of wildlife. Glad I cancelled my family membership following my doubts about their chairman.
It really does beggar belief how somebody like Simon Jenkins can become Chairman of the National Trust. It is even more unbelievable that he can make public comments so apparently out of step with the organisation. Having met Dame Fiona they surely must be so out of step with her own views. I too recently gave up my membership because I feel my money would be better spent supporting some other organisation.
The problem with politicians is that they only have visions the length of their term in office. We need a minimum of a 100 year vision for our environment and frankly politicians will never deliver that. They will stumble along making short term “gains” and trying to satisfy the masses.
The ignorance of most politicians on nature conservation issues is astonishing. In another life I remember speaking to Damian Green MP when he was Shadow Environment Minister. His knowledge of the subject was so poor that I suggested he only got the job because his name was Green.
I am convinced that as well as putting pressure on our politicians we need to instigate a pretty quick and massive education programme for all ages. Until we start to address unpalatable issues like population size and the personal greed and selfishness of many who are happy to be wildlife friendly as long as it does not affect their personal wealth.
I do not know the answers but with the almost total collapse of Communism and now the possible disintegration of Capitalism the time has come to look for another way.
Mark/ All,
It’s good to see that the debate initiated by the NPPF consultation is continuing apace. It has certainly grabbed the headlines, grabbed David Cameron’s attention, grabbed your readers’ attention; but has it grabbed ‘voters’ attention?
It is also interesting to read how the debate has widened to some extent on the role of NGOs and statutory bodies (e.g. Natural England) play in communicating the concerns to Government. I agree with Derek’s comments that we need a bottom up approach, i.e. return the ‘nature table’ to the classroom and engage the younger generation, in particular teenagers. During the August riots, I did wonder how much chalk downland management (or other grassland management for that matter) could be achieved by channeling the energies in to constructive habitat bashing (removal of scrub) and burning (burning of bashed scrub); rather than the destructive behaviours we all observed and deplored. The BTCV could get involved; the RSPB has a strong track record in engaging with children and young adults. With the Wildlife Trusts and others (e.g. Local Authorities, Department for Education, Department for Health and so on), there is a possible way forward on a practical level, which could bring wider social benefits than just nature conservation. It would be important to think outside the box too – engage sectors not normally associated with nature conservation, e.g. footballers, musicians (of all genres) and Simon Cowell. This may seem flippant (OK, the last individual perhaps is) but footballers require grass and the early musicians obtained their instruments from natural materials (and still do) so there is a connection with ecosystems and the natural environment – see http://bit.ly/pel84H for more views on this point. And whatsmore, this could easily fit in with the ‘Big Society’ approach and give local communities a sense of ownership – join it all up and hey, the “Big Society”, “Localism” and a Futurescape/ Landscape approach?
But perhaps we need a top down approach too? This need not necessarily be a formal organisation, but a ‘group of elders’ (say 4 – 6 individuals) who can have the vision and ability to see beyond political timeframes, who are not bound to reflect their employers policies and have earned the respect of their peers – and I think Sir David Attenborough must be involved – a great communicator on this subject. If this group is to have clout, I think in all seriousness, it should not just include nature conservation organisations but have at least one representative from the world of construction/ business, finance or law…it would be important and realistic to listen and incorporate their views, needs and aspirations too…and perhaps a workable compromise here and there can be achieved to enable us all to move forward.
With regards
Richard