The Conservative manifesto promised that ‘Once EU law has been converted into domestic law, parliament will be able to pass legislation to amend, repeal or improve any piece of EU law it chooses‘.
But they wouldn’t do that would they? The Conservatives wouldn’t start to dismantle the Birds Directive or the Habitats and Species Directive would they?
The new Secretary of State at Defra, one Michael Gove, is on the record as wanting to slash ‘absurd’ legislation such as the Habitats Directive because it holds back house building near wildlife-rich sites such as heathland in Surrey. Not for nothing is Mr Gove’s constituency called Surrey Heath, but once he has finished his sojourn at Defra perhaps it will be renamed Surrey Housing Estate.
The areas that our new SoS must be wishing were less protected in his home patch are the Special Protection Area known as the Thames Basin Heathland, and the Special Area of Conservation known as Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham SAC. Other wonderfully wildlife-rich sites are available – but enjoy them while you can!
I am told that Mr Gove is really quite keen on wildlife and so maybe we should hope that when it comes to it he will feel pangs of remorse but the fact that TM the PM has brought back Gove, the arch Brexiter, to head up Defra does not bode well for the maintenance of environmental protection post-Brexit.
Maybe I’m too pessimistic, after all the RSPB tweeted its congratulations to the new Secretary of State within minutes of the news of his appointment, thus…
Sadly I too am somewhat pessimistic about this appointment. In addition to Mr Gove’s previously expressed views on the environment, this party is not known for keeping to its manifesto pledges. Cameron promised us ” The greenest government ever”
The habitats directive must be kept. Many more houses must be built. The nation has wildlife and housing crises.
Housing estates and good wildlife habitats can (and already do) coexist in harmony. Here, the small heathland of Midhurst Common is almost encircled by urban spread. The common is an SNCI (it ought to be an SSSI). More housing development is being applied for. My only concern is that it won’t be affordable accommodation. People are welcome on this common – the place is a social and wildlife hub.
In general, houses and wildlife are mutually beneficial. We should be optimistic. And we should remember that the idea that there is no room left in the countryside is a complete myth.
“In general, houses and wildlife are mutually beneficial”
There is undoubtedly a suite of animals (perhaps not so much plants?) that are happy to treat our houses as potential habitat but is it perhaps a little over-optimistic to suggest that the relationship is positive overall? New built houses are rather less wildlife friendly than buildings used to be, with fewer opportunities for the likes of swifts, hirundines, bats and so forth to enter and take up residence (although I am aware that some developers are now starting to make swift accommodation an in-built feature of their houses). What’s more, apart from this relatively restricted suite of ‘domestic’ species, most wildlife is excluded permanently once an area is built over.
I agree that there is a need to build a lot more houses and also that there is land available on which they could be built with relatively little impact on wildlife but I fear that the sites that developers wish to develop will not necessarily be those with the lowest environmental impact. Furthermore, a thoughtlessly applied policy of developing brownfield sites can result in the loss of precious wildlife habitats (e.g. the threat to the Lodge Hill nightingales) and there is considerable resistance to developing wildlife poor agricultural land. I would also suggest that, notwithstanding your comment about Midhurst Common being “a social and wildlife hub”, the building of more housing in close proximity to heath-land sites in southern England (or sensitive wildlife habitats elsewhere in the country) increases the pressure on the habitat with greater risk of fire, disturbance of wildlife, vandalism, littering, dog fouling and so on. I am not suggesting that people should be kept out of these places but it is important to recognize that by increasing the density of population in their vicinity we do risk substantially degrading their wildlife value.
These are not necessarily insoluble problems – as you say there is space available to create housing and what’s more sensitive development can potentially provide a space for nature within the built environment, – as in the case of the swift bricks . To achieve this, though, we do need an environmental department in government that is actually prepared to stand up for the environment as well as legislation that provides a strong regulatory framework for it to do that. The appointment of Gove does not inspire much confidence in either regard.
Thanks for that response, Jonathan. I agree with most of it.
You mention littering and vandalism – plenty of that on this common. Unpleasant yes, but almost completely irrelevant to wildlife. The data collected over the last 30 years is testimony to that. Moreover, some species like Smooth Cat’s Ear, a Sussex rarity, positively thrive and spread due to disturbance e.g. via the illegal dirt biking in the abandoned sandpit. In effect the motorcycles activity is no different from the effect that wild boars have on the heathlands of the Forest of Dean. The only difference is that with the real thing, it looks as if a mechanical digger has been at work.
You mention dogs. This small common has had breeding Nightjars since for ever. Dogs have always been numerous here. What’s the problem? What’s the benefit? The benefit is that they keep a far too high population of deer constantly on the move. That’s good for the under-storey in the woods that cover 75 % of the common. That’s good for biodiversity, especially avian. Let’s be positive and say we have the benefits of make-believe wild boar and wolves — interesting proxies thanks to the proximity of people and houses.
OK, there’s a bit of a problem sometimes for the ‘lone enchanted’ male/female naturalist. But there’s loads of other spaces out there, a mile or two up the road, where you won’t see a soul. That said, it’s very easy to find solitude even on this well used common, if you choose the right time of day.
I’ve never been to Europe’s the top wildlife country, Romania but it’s said that many of its villages, towns and cities have top predators, wolves and bears very close by. What’s the problem?
As for this last comment, it’s certainly not directed at you:
9 dislikers: let’s hear what they’ve got to say about more housing and its effects.
I refuse to believe they will say anything misanthropic.
“In general, houses and wildlife are mutually beneficial.”
Yes, that’s a sloppy statement.
But it’s possibly true if you consider the Scottish Highlands pre the Clearances.
What do have now? A wet sheep and deer wrecked wet desert?
I’m betting the biodiversity was much higher when small fields and cattle grazed birch woods existed in the Highland glens in the 18/19th C.
I am sure you are right about the 18th century wildlife of Scotland but it probably wasn’t the houses per se that made the difference! 🙂
The outrageous over-inflation of house prices which forces young people to leave their towns and villages, is a modern version of the Clearances. We need 2 million more houses now. Inevitably some will end up near prime habitats. So that’s bad is it if it benefits nurses, teachers and factory workers – you know those sorts of people who serve the rest of the privileged members of society? Incidentally those workers will have far less distance to travel to work. Ultimately that will benefit wildlife.
In this small town we have issues finding accommodation for nurses at the cottage hospital. Recently it had to be closed because of lack of recruitment. Some nurses were commuting 50 miles. That pattern is being repeated countrywide.
Mark wonders, in one of his next blogs, as to how wildlife NGO’s can create a higher public profile. One answer, is to actively engage in the housing crisis debate and be prepared to make concessions re parts of the countryside. Most people haven’t the time to care that much about conservationists. Some just dismiss us as nimbys and lone misanthropes. It’s about time we upped our game.
“So that’s bad is it if it benefits nurses, teachers and factory workers – you know those sorts of people who serve the rest of the privileged members of society?”
In my original comment I clearly acknowledged the need to build a lot more houses so I am not sure why the sarcasm is called for, Murray. My point was that, whether we like it or not, building houses does affect wildlife and that given this fact we need to do our utmost to provide the housing with the least amount of harm possible to wildlife. This means choosing sites carefully and as far as possible building on land that is of low value for wildlife. I am well aware that there will be compromises to be made and that houses need to be located where people can access jobs, shops, hospitals etc but I believe that it is important to resist the notion that every other consideration trumps the protection of wildlife. In order to build the housing we need whilst protecting our wildlife it is important that Defra should actually live up to the ‘E’ part of its acronym and stand up for the environment and that the legislation that empowers it to do this should be maintained or reinforced.
I don’t think there is anything misanthropic in that view.
Jonathan. Apologies. I shouldn’t have been sarcastic. I was attacking far and wide — but of course you weren’t to know that.
Thanks for the rest of your comment which I agree with.
The comments on Twitter last night were interesting & varied, with some being pleased about the announcement. Personally I feel very worried, esp with the DUP attitude to climate change, and am still naively clinging on to hope that they won’t be able to secure the majority they need to govern.
“People in this country have had enough of experts”.
Michael Gove, June 2016.
Worrying.
To be fair, the full quote was “We’ve had enough of experts from organisations with acronyms saying that they know what’s best and getting it consistently wrong.”
Unfortunately I suspect he may decide that some acronyms (RSPB, BTO) fall into this category, but others (BASC, GCWT, NFU) do not.
Thankfully Buglife is acronym free!
Not an appointment that inspires optimism for the environment. The latest in a series of grotesques to take possession of Defra.
Hi all,
Michael Gove indeed! And on paper, not a good decision for the environment. Foxes may be breathing easier since the 9th June; but GCNs may be feeling a little queasy!
Anyhow, on a more sober note, whilst Give is not my first choice (or even 31st!), at least it wasn’t Patterson. Secondly, let’s be grateful it is a shaky coalition/ agreement/ loose arrangement. I think there is general consensus that not much legislation, and particularly controversial legislation, that will get done; so the worst potential excesses of Gove’s scissors to red tape will be curtailed. I also think that TM’s time is very shortly up. Whilst there may be no appetite for a leadership change, I suspect events and circumstances will dictate her future, not her will. There could also be a realistic chance of a second General Election before the year is out and I think Corbyn’s Labour party must stand a good chance of at least forming the larger party if not an outright majority.
A third factor (and there are more) will be Gove’s own constituents. Whilst he is sitting on a healthy majority, all Tory MPs will be conscious of the Canterbury result and any impacts on the Habitats Directive will have a particular effect on those residents of Surrey Heath. After all, they presumably quite like living in Surrey Heath and would object if their own MP increased the likelihood of the Heath becoming something else.
So in summary, bad news on paper; but I don’t think much will happen. (Hopefully not famous last words!)
Richard
I’m sceptical as to how far the Canterbury result could be replicated elsewhere or how much of a threat other Tory MPs might feel they’re under. However, I cannot overstate my delight and astonishment at discovering on Friday morning that my rock solid long-held Tory hometown had gone over to Labour. Better still that my pro-DGS, pro-foxhunting, pro-badger cull and anti-gay marriage MP had been replaced by Rosie Duffield. Not wildlife related I know, but it seems somehow emblematic of the seismic change that within 48 hours my new MP had taken part in and spoken at the city’s annual “Pride” march. Having religiously written to Julian Brazier (ex-MP) on environmental matters (as requested by Mark et al) and become resigned to the fact that my points will be rebuffed, I’m now impatient to be asked again!
Student voting was acknowledged to be a factor in Labour’s success in a number of constituencies. Should the next election be held outside term time these student votes may be diluted in their home constituencies rather than concentrated in their university constituencies and consequently much less influential.
MPs also keep university terms and wouldn’t want to disrupt their hols by having to talk to the electorate.
Well we will have to give him a chance, but something tells me we are in for a few disagreements. It won’t be long before we will be able to form a judgement, but hopefully the pro-environment MPs might be able to assist us.
Gove will be a disaster for wildlife. Stop kidding yourselves that he will change his views.
Guilford has 89% of its area in the Green Belt and much of the borough is within the 5km mitigation zone of TBHSPA. The draft Local Plan being prepared for submission to PINS proposes in excess of 20,000 new houses, 70% in the Green Belt and approx 7,000 within the TBHSPA 5km zone. To facilitate this perfectly adequate agricultural land and common land is being redefined as SANG through the planning system. Local residents have resisted this with 52,000 comments submitted during Regulation 18 and Regulation 19 consultation phases. The Habitats Directive as interpreted into UK legislation can do little to protect us now.
In Surrey Heath, the council has been showered with money by Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Partnership to enable it to buy areas of the countryside in order to declare them as SANG, to enable house building within the TBHSPA 5km mitigation zone. There are eight local authorities surrounding TBHSPA all subject to similar pressures through the NPPF “developers charter”.
Until we see a more balanced regional economic strategy that pushes growth away from the South East, this situation will worsen, irrespective of the incumbent SoS ar DEFRA.
Can’t say I welcome the appointment, I just hope we end up with the Gove that was the evidence-based Justice Secretary not Gove the swivel-eyed loon of an Education Minister. He’s much brighter than Leadsom, I’ll give him that.
I saw the RSPB tweet and couldn’t make up my mind if it was tongue in cheek/sarcastic or for real. Still not sure. But I am sure about Gove and I base this on my own gut feeling and intuition which tell me he’s a walking distaster and sadly, I think he cares far less about the contents of the ministry he’s been entrusted with than about himself. He’s another nasty piece of work to add to the pot of the increasingly nastier party. It would be good to have some of the optimism of other comments already made but I know that for me – and probably for the environment too – it ain’t good.
Joyce – all NGOs have to work with whoever is in power. I’ve written lots of letters, which started with words a bit like that one, to incoming ministers. But the letter then usually goes on to list a few things we like and a few things we don’t like and asks for a chance to discuss them.
A tweet doesn’t leave a lot of room for a list of action points and, to be fair, Martin Harper’s tweet does refer to the tory manifesto pledge to leave the environment in a better state than that in which they inherited it. I’d take that as an indication that the RSPB intends to hold Gove to account over that pledge (and if so then we must hold the RSPB to account with respect to that intention). Hopefully there will also have been letters which set out more substantively what the RSPB expects government to do in order to fulfil the pledge.
That was my interpretation of the tweet too – super courteous but we mean to hold you to account.
After reading the comments there is not a lot more to say. I just wonder what time it was last night when someone from the grouse shooting industry got in touch with him.
Scuse me if I’ve mentioned this before, but the very first time I became aware of Mr M Gove was when I was watching a Newsnight feature on relaxing greenbelt regulations. Gove’s ‘contribution’ was to state – ‘it doesn’t matter about building on greenbelt as we already import a lot of our food’ – I am not making that up, but wish I was. Not optimistic.
With Gove’s reputation for back-stabbing this could be a case of keep your enemies near if you’re in a weak position, but I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw Ruth Davidson.
With any luck Gove will serve the PM with the same brand of loyalty dished out to Boris and reap the consequences in short order. Then, perhaps, she might wake up and put an informed, wildlife friendly minister in charge. On the other hand, of course, pigs might fly!
Why is the RSPB quoting the manifesto from a past government?
Possibly because Theresa May has just torn hers up?
It is actually part of the manifesto written for this election (page 26). The previous manifesto was written prior to the brexit referendum and therefore did not include any reference to what they will do “as we leave the European Union”.
If not him then who?
Barry Gardiner in a new Administration!
How about Greg Knight? He’s very charismatic…
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2017/jun/06/conservative-mp-greg-knight-campaign-video
Sir Jeffrey Dunning-Kruger is The Man
He certainly knows what he’s talking about!
All I can say about Gove is: “I have seen no publicly available footage of him biting heads off live badgers”.
There ya go. That is all you can quote me on about him.
First of all a big thanks to Mark for highlighting Michael Gove’s other environmental wazzockry.
I think the only positive thing is that I think the whole idea of a Theresa May led government is a charade. What I mean is that I don’t believe that most senior Tories actually think it is viable and realistic and they are going along with the pretence to buy themselves more time to work out a Conservative survival strategy. However they will be no more viable with another leader.
I do not rate the chances of a Conservative government lasting for long before they tear themselves apart.
Here is part of my reasoning. Theresa May was seriously worried about her ability to push through a hard Brexit policy demanded by those on the right of the Conservative Party. Only a small backbench rebellion could have led to a government defeat, hence why she wanted a much bigger majority. That problem not only remains, but the Conservative government is in an even more precarious position.
The chaos of the coming months will make the Conservatives a laughing stock, with no credibility whatsoever, especially after campaigning on the strong and stable government ticket. The cracks and divisions in the Conservative Party will become ever clearer. The right will still be demanding hard Brexit, and the pro-European Tory MPs will use the weakness of the government to water down the Brexit strategy. It is not just the opposition parties the Tories have to fear, but their own ranks. At some point the Tories will have to concede the cannot govern.
I think the most likely scenario will be another election within the near future, where the Conservative Party will be properly defeated. Therefore with any luck Gove won’t be able to wreak too much damage.