The Friends of Thorpe Woodlands together with the Norfolk Wildlife
Trust and all of our local councillors (Ian Mackie, John Fisher and Nigel Shaw)
oppose these new plans.
The Proposals
In their pamphlet the developers set out 5 main proposals,
these are:
1. No more than 300 homes
The building of housing estate within these woods would not
only destroy 25 acres of rare English woodland it would also degrade the
surrounding woodland due to light pollution and supporting infrastructure such
as roads, drains and paving.
The development area would directly affect rare species such
as Great Crested Newts, White Admiral Butterflies and rare bats
2. 80% smaller than original proposals, but they still destroy 25 acres of woodland
The area of woodland destroyed would still cover a very large
area (equal to 20 full size football pitches), its destruction would be the equivalent
to felling and building over the entirety of Lion Wood. Norwich and Thorpe St
Andrew cannot afford to loss this much irreplaceable habitat.
3. 150 acres of land for local community, but at a price
Socially Conscious Capital claim that the local community will
have access to a 150 acres of woodland under their new plan, however the price
for this is the destruction of 25 acres of beautiful woodland. The truth is
that we already have access to 200 acres
of woodland that are a recognised County Wildlife Site, the loss of 25 acres is
simply too high a price to pay both for local people and the wildlife that
depends on these woods.
The owner of these woods can manage them as a sustainable commercial woodlands, this approach would allow them to combine making a profit, preserving the woods in their entirety whilst continuing to allow local people access to them.
4. Cycle & pedestrian links
The transport links put forward under the developers proposals would have a negative impact on the ecology of the woods and could damage the wildlife that is dependent upon them.
It should be borne in mind that Broadland District Council’s existing local plan will create many new cycle tracks and pedestrian links without threatening the woods and the wildlife within them.
The owner of these woods can manage them as a sustainable commercial woodlands, this approach would allow them to combine making a profit, preserving the woods in their entirety whilst continuing to allow local people access to them.
4. Cycle & pedestrian links
The transport links put forward under the developers proposals would have a negative impact on the ecology of the woods and could damage the wildlife that is dependent upon them.
It should be borne in mind that Broadland District Council’s existing local plan will create many new cycle tracks and pedestrian links without threatening the woods and the wildlife within them.
5. The new proposal claims to enhance the woods County Wildlife Site status
This statement is simply untrue, The Norfolk Wildlife Trust,
who have identified the woods as a County Wildlife Site, have viewed the new
proposals and have issued an unequivocal statement opposing them, it states that rather than enhancing the woods
the plans would “represent a major
development and will have a significant adverse impact on the woodlands”. The
Norfolk Wildlife Trust are also keen to point out that the claim that more trees would be retained
under these proposals is also misleading as under the felling licences
currently in place the owners must
replant a tree for each one they fell.
We understand that the developers plan to submit a planning application next month. If and when they do we shall let you know how you can let Broadland District Council’s planning department know that you are opposed to these damaging and unnecessary plans.
Very good point about the lies SCC are telling about the loss of trees. They claim that fewer trees would be lost if they are allowed to wreck the '25 acres' than if the forestry operations continue - ignoring completely, as you say, that fact that forestry operations retain woodland permanently through re-planting and/or natural regeneration. This is the most glaring lie and must be shot down in flames at every opportunity.
ReplyDeleteThe woods, as you say, amount to 200 acres. I'm no mathematician, but if they build on 25 acres and allow public access on the remaining 150 acres, I think they've got their sums wrong (yet again). Or do they say where the other 25 acres has gone?