Destroying ancient woodland - a stunnngly bad idea
- 4 January 2014 19:10256941A real gem, this one, that really made my blood boil.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ancient-woodland-could-be-destroyed-to-make-way-for-building-in-offsetting-push-9038794.html
The naivete - this totally disregards the loss of a unique habitat that cannot simply be replaced by cold, industrial planting.
Why not plant all the new tress anyway and NOT destroy ancient woodland?
Of course, the underlying cause - and let's not avoid the issue - is that the last Labour Government recklessly and quite deliberately allowed immigration to run out of control, which the coalition is now desperately trying to get to grips with - but it is like trying to turn around a supertanker.
I wish a few on the Left would take their heads out of the sand and accept that if you let more and more people into the country you will have to keep building more and more houses.
I reckon an eight year old could grasp the concpet.
It has nothing to do with racism, it is about quality of life and not allowing an already horrendously overcrowded country to get even more that way. I cannot believe anyone is genuinely capable of such a level of self delusion as to really believe differently, even though some of the English love to play a nasty game with each other on the issue.
Don't get any ideas, DDC and your greedy developer pals.
[Sighs and shakes head]. - 4 January 2014 19:17256942
is it not protected somewhere along??? Thought you cant build on protected woodland?Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud. Maya Angelou ☺🌈🌄🌌🌏🌍🌎 - 4 January 2014 19:40256945Apparently not if this plan goes ahead, Heike.
- 4 January 2014 20:03256947protected buildings tend to stay protected, ancient woodlands not always.
the problem is that they don't usually have any powerful backers so developer's money can seem more important. - 4 January 2014 21:40256955Oh Dear :( I do hope they back off. England dont have much Woodland compared to other countries. It would be sad to see this go just because of money which the town never going to profit from. I cant see them either with the promises to plant more trees. This is just a tick on the paperwork. Seen this too many times. Hope DDC decides against it for once and shows the green thump up.Try to be a rainbow in someone's cloud. Maya Angelou ☺🌈🌄🌌🌏🌍🌎
- 4 January 2014 21:45256956not a local thing this is more about the principle.
various governments have left our country as the most densely populated country in the european union other than malta.
the more the population rises the more green field sites get built on. - 5 January 2014 08:43256974Good points Andrew (and your's Howard; it wouldn't happen here. I'm not sure we have any Ancient Woodland in the District.
The argument about letting more and more people in and where houses will have to built, is a very valid one, but it also applies to demands on the NHS, Education, Police etc. etc.
We are full up now, further damage will be done, the more come in.
Roger - Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
5 January 2014 08:47256975Whoever thought this daft idea up should be sacked, planting a few new trees simply could not replace an ancient woodland where trees can be hundreds of years old. I doubt this will ever happen can you imagine the deserved furore if some builder wanted to destroy part of the New Forest.
I am sure the public will be on the side of any protest group should their local ancient woodland be threatened.-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
------------------------------------------------------------------- - 5 January 2014 09:17256976You get what you vote for
- 6 January 2014 10:08257070Ancient Woodlands can NEVER be replaced, certainly not just with young trees. The biodiversity is beyond our imagination in an ancient woodland. This is a very bad idea.---------------------------------------------------
Lincolnshire Born and Bred - 6 January 2014 13:04257080Roger, there definitely is ancient woodland in the DDC area - uncomfortably close to the Whitfield New Town development too, and within the area of search for one of the spine roads related to that proposed development
I am sure there are others too. - 6 January 2014 15:55257091Can you tell me their exact location Andrew ? I'll see if I can find them.
Roger - Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
6 January 2014 16:09257092well its time to start a tree hugging group isn't it.
- 6 January 2014 16:16257094Hi Roger, all outlined on the DDC map at the end of the following link http://dover.devplan.org.uk/map.aspx?map=27&layers=all You can more clearly identify the Ancient Woodland by removing all the other layers except for the Ancient Woodland layer.
- 6 January 2014 16:17257095If you shake it whilst hugging Brian I'm sure that you could get a squirrel or two for lunch:)
- 6 January 2014 16:26257097Yes indeed it is a stunningly bad idea. Im afraid Owen Patterson doesnt seem to have all his lights burning on the top deck. Reminds me of that other minister Caroline Spellman who wanted to sell off our forestry...she was shown a quick exit on the next reshuffle and has been languishing in the wilderness ever since..
Here is a picture sent over to me a few years back from the one and only Kath Hollingsbee of local (which i presume to be ancient) woods. Nice too..gives an idea what could be destroyed.
Nice pic Kath !
email: dover7@msn.com - 6 January 2014 16:38257100we keep reading about the demise of bluebell woods that one above seems to be doing fine, i remember that one on here before.
- 6 January 2014 19:35257127The only one I definitely know about is Singledge Wood, Roger.
But I suspect nearby Eastling Down is really an extension of the same complex. I am sure there are others, as Neil's map hopefully shows.
Brian, it's not about hugging trees, just ensuring that a few particularly valuable ones don't get houses built all over them.
Spinney Wood appears to be another.
http://www.dover.gov.uk/kentcoal/minerstrail/ancientwoodlands.asp
Moreover we are facing the loss of all those ash trees.
This country seems so lacking in any sense of connection with nature it is scary and what is even scarier is that so many people don't even seem to realise that or place any importance on it. - 6 January 2014 22:09257149Too much sentimentality when it comes to building houses in the woods methinks. Where ever a developer wants to build much needed housing stock there are always those opposed. Over the years building developments have been allowed to be built on flood plains which is the most stupid thing any developer could do besides putting up an estate in the middle of a dual carriageway or on the runway of an airport.
It's strange how some delight in the thousands of useless wind turbines in pristine countryside which blights the area and yet see woodland as somehow sacred.
They're only trees after all. - 6 January 2014 22:58257153Thanks Neil and Andrew.
Roger
