THREE YEARS ON...

On the 18th of March Broadland District Council launched its 3 month public consultation on its North-East Norwich Growth Triangle Area Action Plan (we’ll just call it the AAP).  The AAP had 45 questions relating to all aspects of the future development of a large area of mainly rural open land north-east of Norwich.  Over the 12 weeks of the consultation exercise, a total of 3067 responses were made by members of the public and what councils like to call ‘stakeholders’ (ie: landowners, developers, organizations with interests in how land is developed, etc).  A breakdown of the responses is interesting:

The 45 questions attracted 3067 responses altogether, of which 2446 were responses directly to questions 23 and 24, ie: the two Thorpe Woods questions.  That’s right, almost four times as many people responded to the Thorpe Woods questions as to all the other 43 questions put together. Question 23 was on whether Thorpe Woods should be allocated for some development or retained in its entirety as it is: 1662 responses were made, of which 1659 were unequivocally against development and for retention as woodland.  The three pro-development responses were from Gail Mayhew, Socially Conscious Capital, and one member of the public.

Question 24 was on whether a new link road, joining Plumstead Road in the south with Salhouse Road in the north, should pass through the middle of the wood, or around the wood’s eastern edge.  784 responses were made, of which 99% either supported the eastern route in order to avoid damaging the woodland, or expressed opposition to any new link road at all.
The other 43 questions attracted 621 responses. Despite very few of the other questions having any direct relevance to Thorpe Woods, many of the responses were either solely expressing opposition to the concept of development occurring on Thorpe Woods, or made some mention of such views within the body of the responses.

Among respondents to questions 23 & 24 were Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Natural England, RSPB, CPRE, the Norwich Society, Norwich City Council, Norwich Green Party, and a large number of people from all over the Norwich area as well as Thorpe.  There were also a significant number of responses from further afield in Norfolk, and a few from other parts of the country: there were even a couple from France!

The consultation’s results have given BDC a very clear impression of public feeling on the questions they asked, at least where questions relating to Thorpe Woods are concerned.  The Mayhews, Mellens and Meath-Bakers may try to continue ignoring public feeling, but we hope BDC will heed it, and refuse to give an inch to those who would flatten one of the Norwich area’s most treasured areas of woodland for their own profit.

Let’s hope that, by July 2014, we can bring the good news that the woods are at last safe.

Fifty shades of green

New landowner plans which would break up key habitat and have building reach the heart of the County Wildlife Site woodland.

Some time ago we reported that Rock Fielding-Mellen of Socially Conscious Capital had taken over from Gail Mayhew as the Thorpe Woodlands scheme's chief promoter.  Mr Mellen's SCC is now being assisted by Lockhart Garratt (a large forestry consultancy) and Turley Associates (a planning consultancy).  Representatives from all three held a meeting at Broadland council's offices on May 30th, where they presented their latest ideas for the woods.  The meeting's agenda, drawn up by Lockhart Garratt, stated the purpose of the meeting as: "To gather initial views from key environmental stakeholders on a potential concept for the Racecourse Plantation site that seeks to deliver a new community woodland and Green Infrastructure asset, but potentially enabled by some minor element of housing".

We're used to seeing these greenwashed concept drawings from the variety of consultants T&FT have employed over the past 3 years, but this one takes the biscuit. We've created a modified version, here shown below, on which we've greyed out the development and re-coloured the map to better illustrate the loss and fragmentation of habitat. On the original, squint and you might just spot Racecourse's one road, which will presumably get jammed with the parked cars of the several hundred residents who'll have no way of driving any closer to their houses.  But maybe they won't need to, and maybe there won't even be 'houses' as we know them?  Look at the original's key and you'll see that light green with diagonal hatching means "Arcadian Development".  According to my dictionary Arcadian means: "Idealised rural scene of simple pleasure and quiet, typified in Greek and Latin pastoral poetry".  How lovely! A scatter of little wooden cabins, smoke drifting lazily into the clear sky, squirrels on bicycles delivering nuts and berries.  What could be nicer?  Sadly, it means housing estate - about 70 acres-worth, according to our calculations (so much for "some minor element..."), stretched across all three woods, not just Racecourse.  Notice how the hatched green extends along what looks like nice leafly tracks.  Notice, too, the liberal scatter of picnic tables, benches etc, plus a play area, car park, cafe, retail outlet (Tesco?) etc, as if these are features every decent wood and county wildlife site should have.

If their main plan seems far-fetched, their supplementary drawings are out of this world.  We won't waste time trying to explain what they're supposed to mean (it's doubtful even they know), but we'll just point you in the direction of the 'explanatory' text at the lower left corner of each drawing. There must be courses somewhere, where people get trained in this kind of language. (Click on each image to see a large version)

We particularly admire the way the last picture attempts to claim credit for the natural processes of the woodland they'd like to wreck.

At their private meeting, they said that unless they get permission to build in the woods, they might step up forestry operations and fence all the woodland off.  They muttered a similar threat during their 'charrette' in 2010, though strenuously denied it later.

The 'Trustees' seem utterly desperate.  Anyone might think they were short of money, but not at all: their family owns the 5000 acre Walsingham Estate (including its famous abbey, hall, four villages and numerous farms) plus other woodland in the Sprowston area, in Drayton, in Felthorpe, and for all we know, in many other parts of Norfolk.  They certainly don't need the money, and they can no longer fool anyone that they're performing some kind of public service (as they tried to make out back in 2010), because they are now well aware of the massive level of public opposition to their plans. They are also now aware of the woodland's' value to the environment and to Norwich.  It seems more like a hobby for them, or something that started out like that but has hardened into a grim determination to defeat the nature and people who stand in their way.

If that's how it is, they're in for a long game because we'll continue standing in their way for as long as it takes.

Thank you to all those who have responded in support of Thorpe Woodlands to the Broadland Area Action Plan Public Consultation.
Keep an eye on the blog for any developments, and for the final number of those who felt the future of our woodlands to be important enough to take part in the decision on their future.

Final number of responses is 2440!

99% of those were 

against any development of the woodlands.

The biggest response ever to a single issue in a 

Broadland Consultation

The vast majority of responses to the Consultation were on the Thorpe Woodlands questions and, of the remaining responses, many refer to the importance of keeping our woodlands for people's well being, the environment and for wildlife.

Thank you again and let's hope that our views are listened to, along with those of the Norfolk Wildlife Trust, and other environmental bodies, that this important local habitat and all the life it supports should be allowed to live on.

Although the consultation is now closed, it is still important to make your views known: to Broadland Planning by this email link.

ldf@broadland.gov.uk

Or make your views known by getting them in to the EDP or EEN by this link:

eveningnewsletters@archant.co.uk

If you want to see the world of life that we can save, click on this link to: 
Thorpe Woodlands Gallery

Between a Rock and a green space...

That's the choice we'll all be faced with when BDC's public consultation begins on March 18th.  Rock Fielding-Mellen was quoted at some length in Chris Hill's excellent feature on Thorpe Woods (Evening News, 4th March and Eastern Daily Press on 5th March).  Rock might have talked a lot but he wasn't saying anything. He simply regurgitated the same old drivel doled out by the Mayhews, the Meath-Bakers and Andres Duany during their charade of a charrette in July 2010.

Fielding-Mellen said he wanted to explore all options, that nothing had been decided, that he wanted to see what everyone thought about the site and to gather local knowledge and opinion, and that only when he had done this would any concrete plans be produced for the future of the woods.  He said that the BDC consultation would form the start of this process, and went on to say that he didn't think anything like a "ground -up exercise looking at all the opportunities and constraints" had ever been attempted before.

It is common knowledge that Gail Mayhew spent months getting him started on this 'project' and went to the trouble of introducing him to local council members and officials. It is incredible that Gail, who loves to talk about her ideas on how the woods could be enhanced by building houses in them, didn't let Rock know in great detail about everything that had happened over the 12 years or so that she's been involved in 'promoting' the woods. Yet what he said was exactly what his predecessors told everyone two and a half years ago.

Back then, they told everyone throughout their week long charrette how they wanted it to be a ground-up exercise designed to explore every option; how they would be guided by local knowledge and opinion, and if it turned out that local opinion was strongly against any development in the woods, there would be none.  They promised to hold another public meeting in September 2010, to gauge public opinion once the charrette had had time to sink in. They promised to release their video of Andres Duany's final presentation (at which Duany revealed the shockingly destructive nature of his plans, and at which he was loudly argued against despite doing his utmost to avoid awkward questions). They promised that they would keep everyone thoroughly informed by keeping their website fully up to date. They also assured us that their motives were honourable and that their approach to all things connected with the woods was entirely open and honest.

They didn't hold any more meetings. They didn't release their video. They didn't update their website once, and they failed to keep anyone but themselves informed about anything. Their 'open and honest approach' was flexible enough to allow for Gail Mayhew to acquire, in August 2010, website domain names such as friendsof thorpewoods.co.uk, savethorpewoods.co.uk etc, presumably in the hope of thwarting any ambitions on our part to obtain them.

They lied then, and it looks very much as if the same old lies have been passed to Rock for another airing.

But maybe Rock will surprise us all?  Perhaps he'll do a bit of research (this blog would be a good start), talk to some local people and their elected representatives, and the penny could just drop: maybe he'll realise that nobody wants the woods changed in any way other than for the better - and that better means nothing more than managed for the benefit of their already flourishing wildlife and made easier for people to walk around. Maybe he'll see that people don't merely value the woods as places to walk their dogs, but for their intrinsic beauty and the wealth of flora and fauna to be seen in them at all times of the year - values which would be ruined if his clients (Thorpe & Felthorpe Trust, aka the Mayhews & Meath-Bakers) ever get their way.

Rock might see the dazzlingly obvious where those who went before failed, but it would be unwise to put too much hope in that. Instead, we must all take the chance afforded by the forthcoming BDC consultation, to let BDC know exactly what we think of any 'promotion of the site for development'.

AN UNPRECEDENTED LEVEL OF THREAT

Britain’s trees & woods are facing “an unprecedented level of threat” according to a report recently published by the Forestry Commission. 19 serious pests and diseases have been recorded as occurring in the country’s tree population, with 10 of these considered to be of epidemic status. Further pests & diseases are rapidly approaching our island from the continent, and are expected to appear here in the near future. The most serious and by far the most talked about disease is ash dieback, which threatens to bring about enormous changes to Britain’s landscape. Acute oak decline is an as yet poorly understood syndrome which results in severe and rapid crown dieback and death. Phytophthora diseases of various species are attacking a range of species including alder, larch, juniper and horse chestnut. Sweet chestnut blight has arrived from continental Europe in the past year or so, and the list continues to grow.

In addition to the threat from ‘natural’ causes, our woodlands are under continual attack by developers. Our trees and woods have always been under-protected but the government’s recent planning reforms have weakened their protection further.

In July 2012 the government released figures from the Independent Panel on Forestry showing that some 3750 acres of woodland has been lost every year for the past ten years. In that period, 683 woods came under threat from developers, of which 134 woods were lost. Research completed in 2012 concluded that there has been a decline of over 95% in hedgerow trees over the past 60 years: in 1951 there were estimated to be 56 million hedgerow trees in England, whereas the figure for 2012 is an estimated 2 million.

All this at a time when trees and woodlands are more valued than ever by the public. The outcry against the government’s scheme to sell off the Forestry Commission’s land was huge, and had to be heeded. Locally, the campaign to save Thorpe’s woods has become extremely popular, illustrated by a torrent of letters in the Norwich Evening News in the fortnight before Christmas: the catalyst for this impressive flood of letter-writing was an article in the Evening News on 10th December reporting that Thorpe councillors Ian Mackie and Nigel Shaw had re-stated their commitment to standing up for the woods.

Britain’s woodlands are very much under siege but the threat to woodlands in Norfolk, and the Norwich area in particular, is probably greater than average. Not only was the site of one of the UK’s first confirmed outbreaks of ash dieback in mature woodland under 20 miles from Norwich, but Norfolk has acute oak decline and Phytophthora diseases in alder, horse chestnut and other tree species. But on top of this, the north-eastern fringes of Norwich have been targeted for 10,000 new houses to be built by 2026. Landowners have been eagerly rubbing their hands in anticipation of the millions they could make if their land is allocated for development in the North East Norwich Growth Triangle, and among these landowners is, of course, the Thorpe & Felthorpe Trust, owners of our woods in Thorpe.

Before the T&FT can lay a single brick, however, Broadland District Council have to explicitly declare the woods available for development in their forthcoming Area Action Plan. The AAP will be the development planning document that govern which land within the growth triangle may be considered for development and which land is to be retained as green space (or ‘Green Infrastructure’ as it is officially called).

In view of the unprecedented level of threat to woodlands in general, anyone might expect the concept of allowing such superb woodland as is found at Racecourse Plantation, Belmore Plantation and Brown’s Plantation to be destroyed for development to be completely unthinkable. However, BDC have so far been reluctant to see it this way. There are strong indications that BDC will include an option for development on the woods in the AAP consultation, expected to be launched in April 2013. We expect alternative options that exclude any development on the woods to go alongside it.

When the AAP consultation begins, it will be essential that everyone who cares about Thorpe’s woods, and woodlands and trees in general, seizes their chance to stand up for the woods by responding to the consultation. An overwhelming NO to any development in Thorpe’s woods will help steer BDC’s decision-makers in the right direction.

Watch this space for updates, and please also put your email address on the new urgent mailout list by sending an email to: savethorpewoods@gmail.com

.

Gail brings Kensington Rock to Thorpe Woods

There is a saying that rust never sleeps and this is true of those well heeled and connected folk who've dedicated much of their time to trying to make a fast buck from building on Thorpe Woodlands.

The trustees of the Thorpe & Felthorpe Trust inherited the woodlands from their now late grandfather John Gurney, who's vision some say contained a little more social conscience. The estate's Forest Plan at least foresaw no development on the woods, rather a gradual improvement of habitat.
For the 12 years since John Gurney's passing, the T&FT have striven to secure planning permission to build on Thorpe's woods. Gaining access to every level of planning decision-making possible, even sitting on Green Infrastructure and Sustainability committees while at the same time planning to profit from burying long standing woodland under housing. They've employed one PR firm or development group after another, with the woods presented as little more than redundant pine plantation, conveniently omitting to mention rare species, diverse wildlife habitat and glowing Norfolk Wildlife Trust assessments.

Now with Broadland District Council set to lay out new planning options for the Growth Triangle for consultation in March, The Thorpe and Felthorpe Trust have found another PR ally to sell their plans. Rock Fielding-Mellen, Councillor for Royal Borough of Kensington under the guise of one of his companies 'Socially Conscious Capital' is to become front man in driving roughshod over County Wildlife Site assessments, Ancient Woodland declarations and local public opinion.

This could be their last chance to get their 'quick quid' out of the nature they inherited; BDC could exclude the Woods from the development zone in the light of new Norfolk Wildlife Trust assessments. 

Rock Fielding-Mellon has very recently set up a whole new branch of his company "Socially Conscious Capital (Norwich)", presumably with the sole aim of lobbying for development on Thorpe's woods.  Rock has also been 'introduced' by Gail Mayhew to the clerk of Thorpe St Andrew Town Council. We feel slightly suspicious of the motive for this officially private introductory meeting. Rock and Gail must have some plan up their sleeve, and if the opportunity to introduce it was not taken there, we can only assume it will be aired as little as possible until a time of best advantage and manoeuvring in the Councils planning procedure.  
We can be sure that quietly, something is being planned, and from previous experience it's not likely to be good news for the woodlands' trees, wildlife or the people of Thorpe and Norwich. We've contacted Socially Conscious Capital to ask what their vision for 'good urbanism' will mean for a County Wildlife Site Woodland, we wait with interest. 

Socially Conscious Capital's 'urban vision' is at:

http://www.sociallyconsciouscapital.co.uk/

ROCK FM comes to Norwich

Sorry Led Zeppelin fans, Rock FM isn't a new radio station, but an oddly named fellow who has been accompanying Gail Mayhew to GNDP meetings recently.  Gail gets everywhere (or at least tries to), and manages to ingratiate herself with members of just about every committee that has anything to do with the North East Norwich Growth Triangle.  Her efforts aren't really surprising, in view of the fact that her family own not only Thorpe's woods but most of Sprowston's too, as well as many hundreds more acres of land in the Triangle.

But I digress - the surprising extent of the Mayhew / Meath-Baker families' landholdings will be the subject of another article.  The point of this article is to introduce you all to Rock Basil Hugo Fielding-Mellen, or Rock FM for short.  Rock really is his first name, but he prefers to drop most of the rest of it when it seems expedient to appear ordinary: Rock Fielding is how he's signed himself in to the meetings he's attended with Gail.  Both have put themselves down as representatives of the Thorpe & Felthorpe Trust (the most recent being a meeting at County Hall in June, to discuss "Green Infrastructure Maintenance").

Rock's mother is Amanda, Countess of Wemyss and March. Rock's ancestors include the Earl of Denbigh and the Marquess of Bath.  Rock is posh, just like 'Barney' Mayhew and Justin (Meath-)Baker. And like them, he seems to want to portray himself as just an ordinary person when it suits his interests.  Not only is he posh, with all the family wealth and influence that goes with poshhood, and not only is he a key figure in the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, he is also the founding director of Socially Conscious Capital and Socially Conscious Capital (Norwich).

"Socially Conscious Capital".  Sounds intriguing but whatever could it mean?  Helpfully, Rock and his pals have provided a website to explain exactly what it means (http://www.sociallyconsciouscapital.co.uk/).  SCC is a company run from Rock's mum's house on Chelsea Embankment - in common with several other oddly named businesses, none of which seem to do much business, if any.  Rock apparently likes dabbling in entrepreneurial enterprises but rarely seems to get much further than setting a company up, appointing a few mates as directors and then waiting for things to happen.  SCC is pretty new, so maybe this one will break the mould?

They've certainly got themselves a nice looking website, which tells us, among other things, that "we are very selective about the projects we take on" - (so selective they haven't taken on any yet - or have they?) 

The explanation continues: "Our key criteria for taking on a new project include: the site itself must have sufficient natural advantages to make a high quality new developemnt feasible" - well, Thorpe's woods have plenty of natural advantages but they make any kind of developemt completely unfeasible.

Furthermore, the website specifies: "The landowner must be willing and able to take a longer term view with regards to maximising the value of the site" - T&FT have no problem fulfilling that criterion, they've been trying to get permission to build all over the woods for over ten years and show no sign of losing interest.

Perhaps most interestingly, SCC's website states: "We are not shy of taking on sites with problems and obstacles, or sites that have a history of unsuccessful promotion"  Hmm, so the upstart SCC, with all of Rock FM's massive lack of business experience behind it, thinks its very frst project can succeed where Andres Duany, DPZ and the Matrix Partnership failed?

SCC Norwich is even newer than SCC.  There is no website or any other information on SCC Norwich, other than the companies house record that it was founded in February 2012.  It doesn't look like a subsidiary of SCC, but more like a whole new partnership.  Rock's partners in SCC are his mum, his stepdad and a couple of mates from Eton/Harrow or wherever.  But his partner in SCC Norwich is one Giles Cherry, a London-based property developer and private landlord.  In the absence of any published information we can only assume that Gail has long been acquainted with Rock from her own days at the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, and is turning to his experimental company as a bit of a last resort.  Whether it is the original SCC, or the Norwich offshoot, that is now working for the T&FT we can only guess: it seems probable that the Norwich offshoot was created especially to cater for Gail's family's 'needs'. 

It makes little difference either way.  However fancy SCC's / SCC Norwich's corporate gloss, facts are facts, and they'll soon come up against some pretty insurmountable ones where Thorpe's woods are concerned.  If only it were true that these woods are nothing more than miserable, ecologically barren conifer plantations - life for the aspiring development consultant would be so much easier.

There's a lot more to be said on Rock FM and Socially Conscious Capital, but - as is the case with what's to be said on Gail's family's land-holdings around Norwich - that will have to wait for another time.