Letter: SANG Policy is Creating Excellent Areas for Guildford People to Enjoy

Published on: 20 Mar, 2019
Updated on: 20 Mar, 2019

Woodlark on Ash Ranges

From Gordon Jackson

Conservative borough councillor for Pirbright

In response to: But Councillor Told Me SANG Policy is a ‘Pointless and Expensive Exercise’

I can assure Gordon Bridger that it is very much the same Gordon Jackson!

When writing previously I was reporting on what I had been told by Surrey Wildlife.

Two years ago I was very concerned about the lack of maintenance on the heathlands surrounding Pirbright and I still continue to believe that the most important aspect of protecting the Special Protected Area is to provide sufficient funds to tackle the gorse, Scots pine, birch and bracken, which quickly take over the heathland.

At the time, I did think that treating alternative green spaces was unlikely to have much impact on the recreational use of the heathland for all the reasons that Gordon Bridger has expressed. But those more knowledgeable than me tell me that the Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) policy is having an impact and I am particularly persuaded by the fact that many of the new SANGs are creating excellent areas for the people of Guildford to enjoy.

Riverside Park in Burpham, for example, provides a fabulous haven for wildlife and many species that do not thrive on the heathland. It seems to me that we should be doing everything we can to promote biodiversity at the same time as providing a reasonable quantity of housing to meet the needs of an ever-expanding population.

My main concern is that in his onslaught on the SANG policy Gordon Bridger does not minimise or misrepresent the importance of the protected heathland.

Ash Ranges are accessible when they are not in use for military purposes and there are extensive areas outside the military ranges that are enjoyed by many. There are regular monitoring reports in relation to bird populations which I am seeking to obtain so that the most accurate figures are available.

Responses to Letter: SANG Policy is Creating Excellent Areas for Guildford People to Enjoy

Jules Cranwell Reply

March 20, 2019 at 4:29 pm

I believed the former Jackson. SANGs are pointless, and just a sop to allow massive house building in the green belt, and generate a pot of gold for the GBC leadership to blow on vanity projects.
Frank Phillipson Reply

March 21, 2019 at 2:03 pm

Riverside Park in Burpham is not a new SANG created in the 21st Century. GBC’s leaflet on the park state, and I recall the events, that “Since its conception in the late 1970s the park has grown as additional parcels of land have been acquired. The main body of land was acquired in the mid-1980s. The lake and meadow around it were by-products of gravel extraction during the construction of the (then) new A3 Guildford by-pass.”

With regard to the policy of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANG), should Gordon Jackson really trust, “those more knowledgeable than me,” ie Surrey Wildlife Trust?
- Gordon Jackson Reply
  
  March 21, 2019 at 6:05 pm
  
  According to the 2017/2018 Planning Monitoring Report, which is published on the GBC website, the amounts relating to the Riverside Nature Park, as part of the SANG policy, are £1,147,689.68p levied, of which £522,526.23p had been spent.
Gordon Bridger Reply

March 23, 2019 at 3:12 pm

Cllr Gordon Jackson states that “people more knowledgeable than he state that SANGS are having an effect”.

Has he not read my letter? They are having no effect as his own advisers admit that the birds they were designed to protect were “effectively wiped out in a cold spell some 10 years ago”. I did not invent the data – NE did.

In other non-Guildford areas, they have recovered due to warmer weather.

Did he not read my statement that “there is no research showing that local [resident] populations have had no and adverse effect on bird life. Again he should read my letter.

Councillors must learn to check the advice they get

The whole scheme is a scandal and nonsense – having had many professional years as an investment analyst in the public sector let me say this is one of the worst schemes I have ever assessed.