January birdsong in Racecourse wood

Video and audio recorded in Racecourse wood on a beautiful day earlier this January. There seems to be a lot more species here than I was told by an ecologist working for the landowners. Employed only to assess the woodlands suitability for development, not to discover the many species previously listed and observed in NWT surveys and photographed by local photographers, The representative of Applied Ecology when questioned about well known resident species missing from his report told me, there was no more birdlife here than you would find in your back garden.
Judge for yourself.

Ancient Woodlands up for development in Government's new 'Biodiversity Offsetting' plan

Environment Secretary Owen Paterson has suggested that Ancient Woodland can become acceptable building land if new saplings are planted to offset the trees lost. Owen is just the latest member of this out of touch Government to attempt to free up planning law and allow the theft of our woodlands for unsustainable development.
Surely only a keen nature denier working solely in the interests of unscrupulous developers and landowners could ever suggest such a moronic notion. 
Firstly to suggest that planting new saplings can replace entire woodland habitats with roots stretching back hundreds or even thousands of years is either ignorant or wilfully misleading.
Secondly, if there is a space to plant hundreds of new trees to offset the loss of an incredibly valuable, scarce and diminishing environment, then why on Earth not build on that site instead. Are we not meant to see the criminal stupidity of Owen Paterson's proposal?

Even in the Government's own Consultation that ended last November it was acknowledged that
ancient woodland would be "impossible to recreate on a meaningful timetable".
Showing his apparent ignorance, Mr Paterson claimed while destroying mature trees was a "tragic loss", replacing each with 100 new ones would "deliver a better environment over the long term".
Concrete over our most valuable habitats and wildlife today for a better Environment tomorrow. This is apparently what we are supposed to believe.

The Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Commons said recently the plans outlined by the government must be strengthened if they were to "properly protect Britain's wildlife".

The MPs said an assessment proposed by the government appeared to be "little more than a 20-minute box-ticking exercise that is simply not adequate to assess a site's year-round biodiversity".

The Woodland Trust has campaigned against the inclusion of ancient woodlands in any offsetting scheme and it rejects the suggestion that the future of these habitats should rest on the proposed economic benefit of a given development.

The future of Thorpe Woodlands still hangs in the balance while we await Broadland District Council's decision on the Growth Area Action Plan early this year. 
It appears that this new year as before, those with influence and keen on grabbing a quick quid at the expense of our environment are an ill wind still blowing very strongly.
Keep watching the blog for further news.

Link to Guardian article
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/04/ancient-woodland-cut-down-biodiversity-offsetting

Link to Article in The Express
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/451994/Anger-over-plans-for-developers-to-destroy-ancient-woodland-if-they-plant-100-new-trees

Rock's Roadshow hits town

A whole set of fresh (well, different) faces, but behind the plastic smiles and the new graphics lie the same old story. With added gloss this time, and at a community centre near you (if you live near Thorpe). Rock Mellen has assembled a large team of 'experts', all of whom have been well trained in the art of insincerity, it seems. The Mayhews and Meath-Bakers who own the woods are throwing money at it: Rock's team at the laughably-named Socially Conscious Capital is already five-strong, and they don't work for nothing. SCC has engaged one of the country's leading forestry consultants, Lockhart Garratt, whose director John Lockhart personally attended the roadshow's recent Thorpe debut. As did Duncan Painter, of Applied Ecology - a high-flying firm of ecologists which specialises in big developments. Then there is Turley Associates who describe themselves as planning consultants, but it seems that in this context, they are acting more as PR consultants. Then there is John Simpson Architects, an expensive London firm. Also on the payroll are Create consulting engineers, a Norwich based company. We don't know whether Gail mayhew still plays any part in things, but some of the text on SCC's website and their exhibition panels looks very Gail-esque.

Rock Fielding of Socially Conscious Capital

The Team unveiled their super-duper new exhibition for the first time on 9th November at Thorpe St Andrew and Thorpe End. They have clearly thrown loads of money at this too, and some of it has stuck: the entire exhibition is almost viscid with PR slime, proffering weasel-words in pretty typefaces. Images of happy children skipping along autumn leaf-strewn woodland paths abound. It could easily be a Disney production. Here are a few highlights:

"This new proposal marks a complete change from that previously put forward by others". Well, is that a fact? Actually, no! This new proposal actually marks more of the same. A re-run of the same old nonsense about how building on 75 acres of the woodland (that's equivalent to a large chunk of Dussindale) would "Protect and enhance the ecological value of the woods", and relying, just as before, on presenting the scheme not as what it is - ie: an attempt to get permission to make millions from development - but as sincere initiative aimed at providing local people with a lovely park.

It would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that these people seem willing to pump whatever cash it takes into getting their way. They seem to imagine that if they repeat the same things often enough, people will start to believe them. There are a few differences this time round though. The most significant is that SCC have inadvertently proved something that we at FTW have been saying all along: that there is a perfectly good alternative to development. Their forestry consultants, Lockhart Garratt, prepared a detailed assessment of woodland management as an alternative option to development, and it is actually very good. However Rock and his West End pals must have thought it sounded terribly destructive and took it for granted that the public would feel similarly. And so SCC, instead of shoving the forestry option under the carpet where nobody would find it, have drawn attention to it, hoping it would shock people into supporting their development option. Just in case people weren't as repelled by the forestry option as they hoped, they produced a special map showing the whole site coloured either red or orange, the accompanying key implying all of this would be clear felled and thinned (see below)

But closer study of LG's forestry assessment reveals the map below, showing what kinds of management would take place up to 2030.

This looks a lot less scary. In fact, it looks pretty good. And when the full report is read alongside it, it becomes clear that what SCC are calling the "Forestry Option" would mean that there would be genuine improvements in woodland quality and wildlife habitat quality, with the whole woodland area turned into broadleaved, semi-natural coppice with standards woodland within 20 years.

One of many things SCC's presentation avoids mentioning is that any forestry management would have to comply with UK Forestry Standards and be fully approved and monitored by the Forestry Commission.

SCC seem to have been thoroughly taken aback by FTW's support for their Forestry Option. At their roadshow in Thorpe, they tried their hardest to ignore it as if hoping it would go away, but whenever anyone picked them up upon it, they resorted to portraying it as a terrible prospect: "they would have to bar public access for safety reasons", "there would be 55 acres of trees felled by 2023" and, most importantly, if the forestry option were adopted, "the woods would always remain at threat from developers". This of course meaning at threat from their clients, the landowners who apparently reject the prospect of a reasonable income from sustainable forestry. 

We will publish more information on the Forestry Option and what it means over the next few weeks.

Rock's Roadshow goes north of the border for attack on Edinburgh Greenbelt

Click image or text link below image to see live Edinburgh News page

Pictured: Colin Kemp, spokesman for local residents group 'Listen to Longniddry'.

SCC held a meeting at which 300 local residents attended. When the development plans were criticised Rock responded to local residents by telling them, “The estate will not be dictated to by the village.”

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/anger-at-aristocrat-developer-homes-plan-snub-1-3192195

Thorpe Woodlands development proposed again against overwhelming advice and opinion

Socially Conscious Capital, the latest firm to be tasked with selling development on Thorpe Woodlands have officially revealed their plans, another attempt by the landowners to profit from building on the City edge County Wildlife Site. Again their plan focuses on Racecourse wood, the largest and most bio diverse habitat. SCC's website arrogantly proclaims "Welcome to the Racecourses" and goes on to say that they wish to provide a new 'Community Woodland' with quality housing. "An imaginative proposal to create over 125 acres of family friendly, publicly accessible woodland park"

The Thorpe Woodlands we have is over 200 acres and already provides recreation and a locally exceptional habitat for wildlife, it hardly seems imaginative to reduce that to 125 acres by building on the other 75.

Rock Fielding-Mellen speaking for SCC confidently says his preferred development option will give people what they want, this despite a record response opposing any development on Thorpe woodlands in the recent Broadland Public Consultation. 2440 responses almost all totally opposed to any loss of the woodlands.

Socially Conscious Capital are completely ignoring this and total opposition from the Norfolk Wildlife Trust, RSPB, CPRE and Natural England in campaigning for development. 

It is likely that they hope to gain momentum for their Building option by side stepping the local planning process already underway, hoping to put pressure on local councillors and planners who will decide whether the Woodlands are excluded or included in the development area.   

Socially Conscious Capital's very green looking plan for housing 

on Thorpe Woodlands as it appeared in the press.

The plans as they appear on SCC's website.

(Figures as high as 700 higher end properties have been mentioned) 

Our clarification of what their '50 shades of green' map actually means

A plan on show at SCC's presentation 8th Nov. Showing a much larger area of housing and much more of Racecourse CWS gone. I was told it was out of date and that no numbers have been set.

Norfolk Wildlife Trust completely oppose these development plans

"In our view Racecourse Plantation and Belmore and Browns Plantations should be retained in their entirety as key biodiversity assets and part of the critical natural capital, within the growth triangle and no part of this woodland should be zoned for development".  

Socially Conscious Capital's 'imaginative' plan for housing in a County Wildlife Site woodland.

Fielding-Mellen, Kensington Councillor and managing director of London based company SCC, said: “Recent ecological studies have confirmed that the ecological value and biodiversity of the site have diminished over the last 10 years, and will continue to do so without active management and investment. It is also the case that the majority of the woods are overgrown and inaccessible to local people". All of this is totally at odds with NWT studies and the experience of local people who regularly walk there.

Seemingly as a threat if development is not accepted, Rock has also presented option 2, a forestry option for Thorpe Woodlands. This return to commercial forestry, so Rock has been keen to emphasise in what seems to be a thinly veiled threat, would result in a reduction in public access. Again this is misleading.

Only last week the Norfolk Wildlife Trust and Forestry Commission told the Friends that in their view it would be entirely possible for the owners of the woods to allow public access and enhance their wildlife value whilst carrying out commercial felling and coppicing. Examples of this include Foxley and Bacton Woods, areas of work are taped off with signs warning the public of the work in progress, a wood never needs closing to the public.

Friends of Thorpe Woodland welcome SCC's Forestry Option

Friends of Thorpe Woodlands welcome this option which would retain the woodlands as a whole and make a reasonable and sustainable profit for the landowner. If forestry is carried out responsibly as the UK Forestry Standard (which the Forestry Commission would insist upon before granting felling licences) would demand, this would retain and improve the ecology of the woodlands and provide for public recreation. Ironically we called for this in our very first blog over three years ago.
(link to that blog)
Within the growth triangle not one house needs to be built on woodland, let alone such an exceptionally valuable site for wildlife and the local community. As Broadland District Council states: Thorpe Woodlands are a core site for bio diversity and a key link in our green infrastructure strategy.

Racecourse's rich ecosystem has thrived without management other than timber extraction (profitable for the owners) since before 2000. It's a ridiculous idea, or maybe just "imaginative" to suggest that building hundreds of houses with roads, car parks and parks across it will somehow save this woodland and nature from itself and improve a mosaic of habitats,  the existence of which they are so busy trying to downplay.

As we did 3 years ago we appeal to all to reject the completely unnecessary building plans and welcome the Forestry Option. This would be a sustainable future for this beautiful and historic woodland, an income for the landowners and a valuable woodland resource saved for Norwich and its people.

(In the Broadland Consultation 2440 responses were received on the Thorpe Woodlands questions, Broadland's largest ever response on a single issue. Over 99% of those 2440 were totally opposed to any building on Thorpe Woodlands)

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