Surely Executive’s Decision To Extend Protection Programme Is A Joke?

Published on: 28 Jul, 2017
Updated on: 16 Aug, 2017

Dartford warbler

From Gordon Bridger

Hon Alderman and former Mayor of Guildford

Readers might be interested to know that Guildford Borough Council (GBC) has recently (July 18, 2017) agreed to extend its programme to protect three bird species (nightjar, Dartford warbler and woodlark) who inhabit two Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Whitmoor Common and Wisley/Ockley Common from its current 80 year limit to 125 years.

The programme which started nearly ten years ago consists of finding alternative Special Areas on Natural Green Space (SPANGs) to attract visitors and their dogs away from them.

The programme prohibits any house building within 400 metres of a SPA and imposes a levy on new housing within 5kms. So far this has raised £6million in Guildford. And in the proposed new GBC infrastructure plan £64million has been allocated for eight new SANGs. There are three other major sites if developed could add £30million to the total.

Some months ago, when consulted as to what I thought of the programme, I carried out some research into it. This was because as a councillor many years ago it was put to us for approval, and I did not think much of it. But we were told that it was an EU Directive which was obligatory (which was incorrect). It was approved without any debate or any indications of costs or number of birds endangered.

This was an opportunity to discover what had happened. On asking for the number of birds saved I was not a little surprised to get an email saying that: “Effectively they were all wiped out in cold spells in 2008/10”.

Surely this was a joke? But on checking numbers with NE there were only 21 nests identified in 2016. This was attributed to bad weather. No mention of marauding visitors or the SANG policy though dogs got one mention. It seemed reasonable to conclude that this was a failed scheme and that it was a waste of money.

I was then told then that the GBC Executive was to consider a report, which proposed increasing the house levy and extending the programme to 125 years. The report stated the programme “played an important role in protecting these international species from urbanisation and detrimental recreational use by local people”. No mention of birds or weather.

Being public spirited individual I thought I had better inform councillors that it might be a good idea to get a few more facts before agreeing such a programme and I was allowed to address them for three minutes.

Were they stunned? Were they interested? Not a bit. They were told by officers, incorrectly, that they had to implement this “successful” programme and that the Development Plan would be in danger if it were not approved regardless of the fact that there were virtually no birds to save.

Putting aside the impact or otherwise of the programme is it right that it should be funded by increased house prices and which will reduce funds available for affordable housing to fund such a programme?

I understand that the report is to be considered by the Scrutiny Committee. If this is so it is a wise step.

Responses to Surely Executive’s Decision To Extend Protection Programme Is A Joke?

Jim Allen Reply

July 28, 2017 at 3:42 pm

Surely a joke and surely they meant 125 days, not 125 years? If they can see no further than ten years before their imagination runs out, as with the proposed devastating Local Plan, how can they see 125 years in the future?

While I totally agree protection is needed it needs to be more than a few species promoted by the politically correct!
Doug Clare Reply

July 29, 2017 at 12:07 pm

Great research from Gordon Bridger, please keep campaigning for this ridiculous policy to be dropped by GBC.

What is more important, a European Directive on the Dartford warbler or affordable housing for young people?
- Harry Eve Reply
  
  July 29, 2017 at 12:49 pm
  
  What is important is genuinely affordable housing in genuinely sustainable locations (and that will not be provided by the current draft Local Plan). And better protection for habitats (and the Dartford Warbler, etc) post-Brexit.
  
  I suggest that we should not blame Europe. At least the EU takes habitat protection seriously. It is a very good photo but I am not sure it was taken by Mr Bridger on this occasion – although the bird does look a bit anxious.
Lisa Wright Reply

July 29, 2017 at 12:15 pm

I would love to see a countering argument from someone who knows something about birds etc. Perhaps Chris Packham would be a good choice?
John Lomas Reply

July 29, 2017 at 4:11 pm

This appears to argue that if there are few individuals in a species it isn’t worth helping them.
But then if there were a lot it might not be necessary to help.
Gordon Bridger Reply

July 31, 2017 at 10:25 am

An interesting point by Mr Lomas – but do we have to protect every species? Species change has been a natural process since the beginning of life – and how much is one prepared to pay? And who is to pay?

Currently, we have raised £6 million and failed to protect these species. How much should we pay? Or rather how much should others pay? Why are these species so precious?

Is it not odd that we establish recreation areas for people and then spend a fortune on trying to get them to go to other areas because they might upset some birds? It gets worse when it means that funds are taken from new homes for people. Is there not a balance to be struck?
- Gordon Bridger Reply
  
  August 1, 2017 at 10:36 am
  
  Mr Eve appears to think I am blaming the EU. I am not. This was not EU policy as we were told but one developed by Natural England and local interests – what the EU required us to do was discretionary.
  
  We might have just needed to put up signs, reduce car parking etc. But we were misled. This only came to light in the GBC “consultation paper ” of September 2016 – no doubt inadvertently, but it confirmed what my Brussels contacts told back when we approved it years ago. For once it was not the EU.