HEDGE NETTING…NEW THREAT TO OUR HEDGEHOGS!!!
- This topic has 23 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Thank goodness for that! I’d hate to think all those signatures might have been lost. The map seems not to be working properly now, so couldn’t check how many locally had signed.
Whoopeee!…105,000 and counting, looks like a few of those votes have come our way…not so bad after all. :-):-):-)
Just went to the petition to help a friend sign and it was nearly 111,000. Great news – now it should be debated in Parliament.
up at 196,000 now – shows the strength of feeling around this issue. Something I can’t comprehend is why does it have to be an all or nothing approach to the building strategy being deployed. It is equally feasible that additional housing can be built around existing trees and hedges etc – in fact – their very presence, make the environment so much more attractive and healthy to live around, as well as ensuring existing wildlife continues to be supported (at least in some shape or form). Shouldn’t more be being done to protect what remaining hedges and edges we have and to promote the benefits they provide to humans, habitat and wildlife.
Hi All,
Arriving a bit late in this discussion but Jan-Marie is absolutely correct about the councils response saying its ‘out of their hands’ better utter nonsense. As Jan=Marie states its the councils planning department that sets down requirements for developers and others in terms of many aspects including environmental needs/remediation. What they stipulated is another matter of course but they should be able to advise on this and, if the developer is in breach, they can then serve notice and get them to rectify the default.
If they are down to remove trees/hedges they have a limited time frame in which to do this by law (other than in emergencies/special circumstances) so using this netting to circumnavigate this needs addressing.
I see the signatures are up to 212,000 so we it will be debated in Parliament so hopefully there will be a sucessful outcome and this practice outlawed.
Thanks Hogmeister,
Any of the documents that cover what you mention above can be requested for review under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act these days. One of my challenges back to the Council and Developers has been whether they are in fact being held to account over what little criteria they are actually setting (although this is typically nowhere near enough anyway). Whilst the documents and policies set out requirements and ‘nice to have’, usually around things they have to, such as, protected species and no more – the application is somewhat lacking and provision of evidence they actually do any monitoring or follow up, is avoided. One wonders who is pulling the wool of who’s eyes exactly on all of this. For the council and developers it all just comes down to money – and if they aren’t robustly and consistently challenged, they are just getting away with it!
Wow!!! 317,000 and counting.
Just read the response by the government and for once I am optimistic, here’s a snippet from the last paragraph:
“Our revised National Planning Policy Framework also makes clear that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural environment by minimising the impacts on, and providing net gains for, biodiversity. However, we plan to require developers to deliver biodiversity net gain, under new arrangements in the forthcoming Environment Bill. This will mean wildlife habitat must be left in a measurably better state than it was before any development.”
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
🙂 🙂 🙂
Hi Penny
Just read the whole thing on my email. I agree, looks promising. But netting still needs to be made illegal so that it can’t be used as a loophole in the law. I just hope there is a good debate about it and they are not too pre-occupied with other matters. Surely, most people must see that it is just trying to cheat the system at the expense of wildlife. Fingers crossed.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
