Press release from RSPB and Kent Wildlife Trust:
A Local council ignores national outcry by ploughing ahead with plans that threaten one of the last bastions for nightingales in England
- Last year over 12,000 people wrote to Medway Council to object to proposals that could see thousands of houses built at Lodge Hill, the most important site for nightingales in the UK
- With nightingale numbers in the UK declining by around 90% in the last 50 years Lodge Hill is hugely important to preventing the much-loved songbirds from disappearing from the UK completely
- Lodge Hill is already recognised as a Site of Special Scientific Interest specifically for its nightingales, and the latest plans could not only jeopardise the rare wildlife at Lodge Hill but threaten beauty spots and wildlife sanctuaries across the UK
This month Medway Council in Kent has responded to the 12,000 plus people that objected to Lodge Hill being made available for housing by publishing a new draft Local Plan that continues to designate land at and around Lodge Hill as being suitable for thousands of new houses.
The decision to include Lodge Hill flies in the face of national planning rules designed to protect important natural spaces, and the local authority’s own pledge to protect important wildlife sites. Sparking concerns that other protected sites could be under threat.
Lodge Hill is recognised as the best site for nightingales in the UK and one of the last strongholds for the much-loved secretive songbird you may not see but will never forget hearing. The national population has declined by 90% in the last 50 years to just a few thousand pairs, with numbers still falling. The decline is so alarming that the nightingale is now listed among our most threatened birds. Unlike many songbirds, nightingales nest at ground level, and there are fewer and fewer sites available where they can safely rear young.
The site includes ancient woodland with grasslands which are home to mammals, reptiles, amphibians, rare insects and flowers as well as nightingales. The importance of Lodge Hill is so great that in 2013 the Government declared it a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) based on its nightingale population.
There are just over 4,000 SSSIs in England and each one is chosen because they represent the best places for wildlife in the UK, and Lodge Hill plays an important role in providing a home for our wildlife for future generations.
Under National Planning Policy, a SSSI can only be developed if all other options for potential development have first been exhausted, and then if mitigation or comprehensive compensation is put in place. These steps have not been followed.
Chris Corrigan, the RSPB’s England director, said: “Every year the tiny nightingale flies thousands of miles from Africa to spend the summer at Lodge Hill, bringing its delightful song to the Kent countryside and raising its young. But this wonderful songbird, that was so numerous and well known that it has appeared in the works of some of our most celebrated poets, is now at risk of being lost from the UK.
“With one of the few places where nightingales are thriving under threat, thousands of people have used their voice at every stage to oppose plans to build at Lodge Hill. We need the local council to recognise that there is a nationally significant site on their doorstep that must be protected and celebrated. So we are asking people to once again make their voices heard so that local decision-makers can see the strength of feeling for our nightingales and special places.”
Greg Hitchcock, Kent Wildlife Trust, said: “Lodge Hill is a nationally important wildlife site, and is designated as such. It is a fantastic asset in the nation’s natural heritage, and should be protected and looked after for future generations. Medway Council received the message loud and clear that there is a huge amount of opposition to destroying this nationally important area, both from within Medway and around the country, but their new local plan still included plans to build on the site. We need to shout louder to protect this vulnerable site and others like it.”
The #SaveLodgeHill campaign has brought together a partnership including the RSPB, Kent Wildlife Trust, Buglife, Butterfly Conservation, Friends of the North Kent Marshes, Medway Countryside Forum and The Woodland Trust.
Medway Council’s public consultation into their draft Local Plan Development Options runs until 11 May. To find out more and how you can use your voice to help #SaveLodgeHill, visit: www.rspb.org.uk/savelodgehill or www.kentwildlifetrust.org.uk/lodge-hill.
ENDS
[registration_form]
I despair.
As wilful stupidity goes this really does take the biscuit. At least we know where the next direct action will be. As long as they don’t let the deer in I don’t imagine they’ll upset the Nightingales too much. Lodge Hill is surrounded by improved farmland and could be the green space for new housing. The Hoo Penninsula has real potential as a new landscape where development and (nuch expanded) green space could create a marvellous environment for people and birds.
Why do we need new housing? At which stage do we decide that there is no room left for new housing?
When did you last look at its price or rents ? Housing is largely unaffordable; the solution is a fair rent act based on 30 year returns. This would probably drive most landlords out of the speculation that has driven “the market”post 2000; this would drive down prices and drive affordability while possibly collapsing a bank or two possibly Nationwide which seems to have followed Northern Rock as the PRS landlord lender; it is a great shame that Green NGO’s like RSPB do not have the guts to decry rents and justice for the young while at the same time defending vital sites such as this; when I say vital I mean for the soul. It is fair rents that might protect SSSI’s and the fair redistribution of the existing housing resource has to be a priority before building on Green Spaces. The top 10% own well over 20% of housing. The bottom 40% nothing ….. and pay the high rents that prop up the whole shabby debt driven edifice of a deeply flawed economy. The nature conservation movement simply does nt the guts to properly defend Green Space. Housing justice for the Priced Out should be integral to their position here. Apart from that we need 200,000 units a year; that is more manageable.
Peter,
first, 774,485 homes have received planning permission in England (!) without a single brick being laid, in the ten years from 2006 to 2015 (latest Government DCLG figures available).
The percentage of foreign ownership of English housing stock has risen to its historical highest. Whole estates are being bought ‘off plan’ in foreign markets: the largest fair for English property is held annually in the south of France!
87% of a recent Docklands development was sold to foreign ownership, while 94% of a Manchester development went straight into foreign hands.
Was your local authority represented in an “all-expenses paid” jolly? You might be surprised?
The biggest buyers of top-end English property in the 21st Century are the Middle East oil-rich, the newly-rich Chinese elite, and Russian oligarchs (Putin’s friends). Many of these people run companies registered in the British Virgin Islands. All these people are looking for a ‘safe haven’ for their ill-gotten gains: they see the UK as politically stable, law abiding and ‘discreet’, and the best place to invest their fortunes (ie convert fiat money backed by corrupt governments for real estate in a stable country. Did you see what that Sheik did recently to most of his cousins’ wealth?)
The interests of farmers, developers and these buy-to-let (foreign or not) owners are best served by keeping house prices high. So supply is deliberately restricted by these groups in not developing their approvals: that keeps prices and rents artificially high.
In turn, by increasing the list of approved-but-unbuilt homes, it ‘forces’ Councils to find yet more land for ‘building’. The unmet need – deliberately being generated by these people – is used as a big excuse for yet more approvals…
There is clearly NO real requirement to approve more housing: just build what has already been approved!
Second, this group also rely on mass net immigration to maintain demand, and hence keep prices and rents artificially high. That is why they donated such large sums for the Remain campaign: they NEED freedom of movement, where the UK is seen as better to live than anywhere else in Europe, by other Europeans.
So, freedom-of-movement has lead directly to high prices and rents here, while lowering unemployment and housing demand elsewhere. We do not NEED more houses: we NEED to stop net immigration!
Third, at which point, Peter, do you say that there are too many people in England, and that we must not build any more houses at all? Is it when there is no wildlife left?
If we continue to increase our population, by developing farm land, how do we find the resources to keep ourselves alive? How do we find the food and water from a diminishing supply? How do we reduce greenhouse gasses? How do we stop sea-levels stealing more farm land or climate anomalies from destroying crops?
I’m interested, Peter, in how you propose to tackle these problems by continually building more and more and more houses without end… ?
Maybe, we have an infinite supply of land for an infinite population? If not, when do we say IT MUST STOP?
Thank you, Mark:-)
I was one of the 12,000 objectors.
The best site for Nightingales in the south Midlands, at Theale Main Lake, was also threatened by a large housing development.
This was Natural England’s response:
“WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981 (AS AMENDED)
No objection – no conditions requested
This application is in close proximity to Sulham and Tidmarsh Woods and Meadows Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Natural England is satisfied that the proposed development being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application, as submitted, will not damage or destroy the interest features for which the site has been notified. We therefore advise your authority that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application. Should the details of this application change, Natural England draws your attention to Section 28(I) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), requiring your authority to re-consult Natural England. ”
“Designated landscapes
No Natural England Comment – Advise consultation with AONB Conservation Board Having reviewed the application Natural England does not wish to comment on this development proposal. ”
However, there are people who care about our wildlife rather more than Natural England does, and here is the result of *their* efforts:
29th June 2017
Development and Planning Service
Council Offices
Market Street Newbury
Berkshire RG14 5LD
Dear Sir/Madam
APPLICATION NUMBER: 16/01240/OUTMAJ
PROPOSAL: Outline planning application for a residential development of up to 225 homes with associated infrastructure including flood alleviation works, drainage works, new buildings to house sailing facilities with associated access and parking, works to the bridge over the Kennet and Avon Canal, means of access, footways, amenity green space, landscaping and other related works. All matters reserved except access.
SITE: Burghfield Sailing Club, Hangar Road, Sulhamstead, Reading
I am writing to inform you that the above application has now been determined and it has been REFUSED.
Yours faithfully
Emma Nutchey
Case Officer
This is appalling, have lived in Medway all my life & seen many wildlife habitats disappear under concrete. Lodge Hill is a very special place. One day when the country is is covered in houses government will look round & realise they ought to have thought about addressing population.
Natural England? I have yet to find any initiatives from them which add to our countryside or wildlife. I personally would like them investigated for fraud as ‘Natural’ is certainly not what they support.
Too much important land being ruined by thoughtless building.
Let me guess, its a Conservative Council?
But which political party legally castrated Natural England? Hint: it was not the Tories, but they have starved it of funds.
Which political party signed the Maastricht Treaty, opening the floodgates of mass immigration? The Labour Whip at the Third Reading was to abstain (only 66 voted against). The Parliamentary Labour Party only voted against the Social Chapter of the Treaty, after they were given an assurance that a Government defeat on that would not wreck the Bill. In the event, Betty Boothroyd made the casting vote in favour.
The Tories therefore voted to open the floodgates, but Labour did not oppose. That is why both John Major and Tony Blair remain determined defenders of freedom of movement and net mass immigration.
Which political party campaigned to leave the EU to try and limit net mass immigration? Hint: it was not the Labour Party.
I think playing party politics on this issue is misguided: both Tories and Labour have put us in this unwelcome situation of the fastest growing population in Europe.
… not forgetting opposition from the Kent Ornithological Society!