Letter: The SANG Policy is Working Well

Published on: 16 Mar, 2019
Updated on: 16 Mar, 2019

Woodlark on Ash Ranges.

From Gordon Jackson

Conservative borough councillor for Pirbright

By coincidence I was taken up on the Ash Ranges by Surrey Wildlife Trust yesterday. This enables me to correct a number of inaccuracies in Gordon Bridger’s letter.

Firstly, the extent of the SPA (Special Protection Area) is far greater than he suggests. He has omitted to mention Ash Ranges which is 1,392 hectares, the Pirbright Ranges and the Pirbright and Bullswater Heaths.

All of these form part of the far larger Thames Basin Heaths, which are recognised as of international importance and rarer than the Amazon rainforest. Animals do not tend to stick to borough boundaries!

The heathland habitat is manmade and has been with us for over 5,000 years. It is not just home to the ground nesting birds that Gordon Bridger mentions, but also to a wide variety of very rare invertebrates and reptiles including the tiger beetle, the sand lizard and the smooth snake.

Readers who are interested can find out more by clicking on the following link https://www.surreywildlifetrust.org/nature-reserves/ash-ranges.

As regards the ground nesting birds, I am told by Surrey Wildlife that the nightjars are doing extremely well. The Dartford warblers are a European bird at the extreme north of their range, although likely to move more and more into the UK as a result of climate change.

Gordon Bridger is relying on information from several years ago. Since then the population has varied and was most recently knocked back by the “Beast from the East” storm. However they breed three times a year and numbers have increased significantly since.

The woodlark numbers are decreasing nationally for reasons that are not entirely certain, but they are very susceptible to disturbance by dogs etc. and tend to keep away from the heathland fringes. We saw two yesterday so rumours of their entire demise are somewhat exaggerated.

Finally, I understand the SANGs policy is generally perceived as working well and not only improving the quality of the heathland but also offering opportunities for increased biodiversity in other areas.

The most pressing requirement is for additional funding to continue to maintain this precious environment, particularly as it is currently dependent on European Higher Stewardship Funding which will cease in the event of Brexit.

Responses to Letter: The SANG Policy is Working Well

Harry Eve Reply

March 17, 2019 at 9:03 am

I thank Cllr Jackson for adding some facts to the SANG debate. However, I feel I must add a few additional points to the general issues being raised by various correspondents.

1. If we are going to count the cost of SANG as an addition to the cost of new housing we must also consider the excessive rewards offered to some players in the housebuilding industry (remember Persimmon) and the sums paid to legal advisors and consultants to find ways round the apparent intentions of planning law.

2. The manner in which GBC is applying SANG policy is to take existing open space with public access and simply declare it as SANG regardless of existing biodiversity – including ground-nesting skylarks. Setting dogs on nesting skylarks is a criminal offence. Using SANG to justify building on skylark habitat elsewhere reveals the absurdity of the policy in terms of existing biodiversity.

3. Guildford is also blessed with another very important habitat that should not, in my opinion, be further built on or infilled – the chalk grasslands and woodlands of the North Downs which extend along the Hog’s Back in the west and northwards to a line roughly following the A246 in the east.

4. Natural England has a new chief executive. Let us hope that this is a signal that government is putting genuine effort into its Environment Bill and releasing the staff of NE to do what it says on the tin rather than find excuses for development to take place regardless.
John Perkins Reply

March 17, 2019 at 9:45 am

Cllr. Jackson is confused – the establishment of SPAs (Special Protection Areas)and the use of SANGs (Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces) to protect them are not the same thing. Most people recognise the importance of, and support, protecting the remaining areas identified as “Special”. Few see building car parks in order to allow development near to those areas as delivering that protection.

The impetus for SPAs came from Margaret Thatcher’s administration in the UK. It was successfully implemented EU-wide as Natura 2000 and was widely applauded. It does not define SANGs, or anything remotely like it, and the rest of Europe seems to manage well without that. (Incidentally, given that the policy came from this country, it’s not easy to see why it might be abandoned because of Brexit.)

As Gordon Bridger has pointed out many times and Gordon Jackson affirms, bird numbers increase and decrease with the weather and not with any government policy. If SANG is perceived as working well, it is not generally so, but rather only by those who defined it and those who benefit from it, none of which have feathers.
Valerie Thompson Reply

March 17, 2019 at 2:58 pm

SANGs appear to be a good idea, in order for people in new houses to have places to exercise, but in fact, they are extremely destructive and, at times, quite pointless.

Permission was given for a SANG in West Horsley, before permission was granted for new homes nearby, indeed, before the GBC Local Plan had even been sent to the examiner.

The SANG is on farmland. Close by is Ben’s Wood, an area of copse, ponds and spaces. Within a mile or so is the Sheepleas, part of the North Downs, where people go to exercise and take dogs and children.

This new SANG on Long Reach is removing valuable farmland, and is creating an artificial space with parking, benches, litter bins and fixed pathways…no trees, no wildflowers! Who would bother to go there?
Gordon Jackson Reply

March 17, 2019 at 3:59 pm

I am not entirely sure why Mr Perkins thinks I’m confused.

Whilst weather clearly does have an impact, the birds are very easily disturbed by dogs and subject to predation by cats. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Natural England has advised that a three-pronged approach is needed to overcome the adverse effects on the SPA which arise mainly from recreational use by local people. The three “prongs” identified are:
the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) to attract people away from the SPA and hence reduce pressure on it
access management measures on, and monitoring of, the SPA to reduce the impact of people who visit the SPA (SAMM), and
habitat management of the SPA which will improve the habitat for the ground-nesting birds.

This approach has been adopted by the 11 boroughs affected in Surrey, Hampshire and Berkshire and has not so far as I am aware been subject to any legal challenge.