That should set the pulse racing - courtesy of Michael Blencowe.
But the repeated attempts of developers to build a golf course at Weavers Down, which supports the last colony of Grayling in West Sussex, and a small, vulnerable population of Silver-studded Blue, in addition to a whole host of rare and threatened species, including Dartford Warbler, Nightjar and Sand Lizard, might make you get hot and sweaty under the collar.
This location is inside the South Downs National Park, so you can make your feelings felt to the SDNPA planning committee online, unless, of course, you would prefer a golf course!
Paste SDNP/13/02300/FUL into a reputable search engine, click on 'Register' using the button in the top bar, and try to find your way back through the clunky website to the original page, where you can click on the button 'Make a Public Comment'.
Not too rude now ....! You have until 6th March .... or I'll see you in the Red Room of Pain.
Do golf courses and wildlife necessarily have to be incompatible? I think for example of Hertfordshire's Royston golf course on Therfield Heath. There is a thriving colony of Chalkhill Blues which I am sure would not be present BUT for the golf course (ie, had it become agricultural land). There must be many other examples.
I would have thought it ought to be possible to work with any developers of a golf course on Weavers Down in order to keep the golfers (can't understand though why they need yet another golf course) and the wildlife people happy.
Jack
Last edited by Jack Harrison on Sun Mar 01, 2015 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
It's not an easy website to use I'm afraid. It took me ages to finally make a successful objection, due to a number of 'glitches'. It really should be better.
Hi Jack,
"Do golf courses and wildlife necessarily have to be incompatible?"
No, they don't.
"I think for example of Hertfordshire's Royston golf course on Therfield Heath. There is a thriving colony of Chalkhill Blues which I am sure would not be present BUT for the golf course (ie, had it become agricultural land). There must be many other examples."
Every individual case is different, and has to be assessed on the basis of a huge number of factors. It's an over-simplistic and dangerous view that a golf course in location A, which happily co-exists with (and might even benefit) species B, is in any way comparable with, or sets a precedent for, plans for a golf course in location C, which endangers a population of species D.
What are the species which will be affected? Have ecological surveys been sufficiently thorough, in establishing the full suite of species present? How much habitat will be lost? How rare and important is that habitat? What are the wider implications for metapopulations and landscape-scale conservation? What are the implications for the connectivity of sites? How rare are the species which will be affected and what levels of protection are they afforded? What is needed in the way of mitigation, to adequately compensate for the damage to rare habitats and wildlife? Is the re-creation of a rare habitat type even possible, and if so, can it be achieved within the short to medium term? How much is required? Have the detailed autecological requirements of the species which will be affected been adequately researched and established? Have those requirements been written into the mitigation plans? Are the plans for mitigation going to provide the correct habitat in the correct place? Were details such as topography taken into consideration? No good creating 'new habitat' for a species if it's on a slope facing in the wrong direction. How mobile are the species which will be affected? What are the plans for the future management of 'new habitat'? Are they fully appropriate to the species in question? What are the plans for future monitoring? How does such a proposal fit with the aims and responsibilities of a National Park? How does the proposal sit in respect of the recommendations provided by the "Lawton Report" (Lawton et al., 2010. Making Space for Nature: a review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological network. Report to Defra.) in rebuilding a coherent and resilient ecological network?
I could go on for a lot longer. It is precisely because this type of work is so complex that the history of mitigation attempts, which almost exclusively try to offset the negative impact on highly fussy 'habitat specialists', is littered with failures.
"I would have thought it ought to be possible to work with any developers of a golf course on Weavers Down in order to keep the golfers (can't understand though why they need yet another golf course) and the wildlife people happy." That depends on whether they are willing to do so. In this case, the offer made by Butterfly Conservation Sussex Branch, to engage with and advise the developers and their consultants, during the last (unsuccessful) application, was never taken up, despite being free-of-charge.
It's about time that we started to value our Graylings, Silver-studded Blues, Nightjars, Dartford Warblers and Sand Lizards, over the provision of yet another golf course in an area which already has many. And that's why we need Butterfly Conservation, the RSPB, the Wildlife Trusts, and other guardians of our national heritage.
"I would have thought it ought to be possible to work with any developers of a golf course........" That depends on whether they are willing to do so.
What,if any, is the legal requirement for a developer to consult with wildlife organisations? If there is no legal requirement then that in itself ought to be a matter for lobbying.
