Bob Berzins sends these disturbing-looking photographs from the Moscar estate – yes that name may well be familiar Snaring in the Peak District National Park 11 July, Peak District snares – what they say, 12 July.
Bob writes, ‘Moscar Estate (owned by the Duke of Rutland) are constructing a surfaced road across Derwent Moor from Moscar House to Derwent Edge. This vehicle route was an established unsurfaced track that was not particularly badly rutted, but was obvious damage to SSSI and SAC protected habitat. A large amount of stone has been added to make a permanent construction. Initial enquiries indicate that planning permission has not been granted. It’s clear the Estate have tried to make this look like “maintenance” by leaving short sections unsurfaced or partially surfaced. The new surfaced track is an eyesore visible from a considerable distance as visitors approach the area. The Planning Authority are investigating but so far no word from Natural England.‘.
Mark writes: there is so much of this type of unsightly development going on – and it seems as though the Peak District is a hotspot. Although I don’t think that the National Trust would allow a shooting tenant to get away with this sort of behaviour it does reinforce the case that NT must, yes must, distance itself from grouse shooting as an acceptable land use, You can help the local campaign on this subject (see Peak Signatures 25 July) by signing their petition online now.
Mark writes: the Peak District National Park and Natural England aren’t seen by wealthy landowners as having any role in matters of land management it seems. This is despite the fact that the National Park is the planning authority and Natural England has a major role in any actions on designated sites of nature conservation importance.
Both organisations need to step up and act far more actively to protect our wild landscapes and our wildlife, not just in National Parks but particularly in National Parks.
Is this actually within a European Site (you say Special Area of Conservation above)? If so, this is criminal. It quite obviously requires a Habitats Regulations Assessment and, from what I can see, it constitutes a likely significant effect and therefor requires a full Appropriate Assessment. Natural England and the LPA must deal with this one pronto!
Messi – it certainly appears to be in the SAC to me.
Is it not the case that within SAC sites, normal permitted development rights are suspended and all engineering works actually require planning permission?
All ‘plans and projects’ that might give rise to a significant affect on any European Site (SAC or SPA, and Ramsar sites as a matter of UK gov poilicy) require assent/concent from NE and are required to be subject to Appropriate Assessment. Permitted Development Rights don’t apply in such cases.
Sadly, too many landowners feel they have an inalienable right to do whatever they like on their land, regardless of the legal system and of wider public interest. Until those organisations that are tasked with looking after our wildlife and countryside stand up to them, this isn’t going to change. Seems that most of them have given up trying.
In which case if they [“organisations that are tasked with looking after our wildlife and countryside”] continue to fail as they have done for many years then let’s promote their disbanding altogether? Then at least we have a clear line of sight to the real issues with no one protecting them?
No, then they should work for the public benefit by delivering environmental protection, conservation, science etc.?
We should encourage people to submit evidence to the House of Lords review https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/nerc-act-committee/news-parliament-2017/call-for-evidence/
On a more practical note, the material looks like limestone? If it is then what was justification for potential impact on peat pH? Was this signed off by NE, sorry probably a silly question ….
I hope the people complaining about this, and other inappropriate and unauthorised development that is mentioned here from time to time, are complaining to the proper authorities and not just moaning through their keyboard to a little bit of the internet populated by like minded people.
jason – I think you will notice that they do if you read enough of this blog
They may claim it is improvement to an existing track in an attempt to avoid real trouble or that it is an agricultural track for which planning is not required. But I hope that they fail and suffer the consequences of building an illegal track, cost of reinstatement of the previous situation plus a hefty fine.