What they say about Seething Wells

At the Core Strategy hearings September, 2011, the Planning Inspector heard various arguments about the the Filter beds and in his report to the council received last month Kingston Core Strategy Inspector's report to the Council November, 2011  he say's the following......

Representor's said that the Thames Water Filter Beds had not been correctly shown as being within Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) on Figure 9 and the Proposals Map; that the implication of the CS was that development would be permitted there; that the details of a proposed public footpath should be later resolved taking account of biodiversity and nature conservation interests; and that the environmental safeguarding of the Filter Beds had not been clearly stated. I agree with these concerns, as did the Council at the hearings, and because of them the CS would be unsound due to lack of clarity and effectiveness. The Council’s suggested changes (CC9) would correct these unsound matters in the CS. And provided that the Council alter the Proposals Map as shown to indicate the Filter Beds as MOL, then this aspect of the CS would be sound. The underpinning document no reads: due to the ecological value of the land it is not seen as a suitable location for housing development; and it would likely be contrary to other Core Strategy Policies’ So that is what the council now say.

Barge tunnel, Seething Wells
and our latest on-line newspaper......
Kingston Courier

and the heritage issues at www.seethingwellswater.org

see field studies of the  London Bat group and the affect of light on Daubenton's Bats here: Daubenton's bat Moon phase Survey 2010

What did the Ecological Consultants acting for Thames Water at the Planning Appeal say?
In the Proof of Evidence, J. Arthur dated 17.2.2003. para 2.4 attested to 61 Daubenton's foraging over the FB's 1997 Survey. Para 2.20 .........particularly over the FB's which have been shown to be important foraging grounds.

All species of bat are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) through their inclusion in Schedule 5. All bats are also included in Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations,1994. The Act and Regulations make it illegal to:
§  intentionally or deliberately kill, injure or capture (take) bats;
§  deliberately disturb bats (whether in a roost or not);
§  damage, destroy or obstruct access to bat roosts;
§  possess or transport a bat or any other part of a bat, unless acquired legally; or
§  sell, barter or exchange bats or parts of bats.

Enacted during 2008, there were moves to strengthen the protection of features of importance that protected species are reliant upon. This applies where there may be ANY disturbance to bats or a disturbance affecting:
  • The ability of a group of animals of that species to survive, breed or rear or nurture their young;
  • In the case of migratory species, impair their ability to hibernate or migrate (also new); or
  • The local distribution or abundance of the species
This may include:
 light pollution and a useful discussion of this is provided by Garland and Markham (2007); and
 the drainage of the FB's, the main  food source for a maternity colony, during bad weather. 

What do you say? Feel free to comment or ask questions. I can't change opinions but I can provide the information or tell you where to find it!

and that's what I say!


Most viewed

Heritage Trees part 2: street trees.

Fishing the Hogsmill

Seething Wells: they've done it again