Wildlife Circus

 Its important to document the rapidly occurring loss of open land to development in the borough, particularly where that loss seems contrary to policy. This is a contribution from an objector to the development proposals, whose comments we wouldn't otherwise see, as comments are no longer publicly accessible.  The comments may help with objections to similar applications, where land has been cleared prior to survey; as you read, it becomes clear how alienated we are when it comes to discussing nature . The contributor to the blog is happy for the following to be copied: I object strongly to this application for the following reasons - A) Ecology and BNG (and possibly UGF) assessments are all in error due to the site being cleared for the development. It is impossible to say what was here beforehand as the site was cleared in advance - some time between August 2022 and February 2023 - almost certainly for the development. It looks as if the Preliminary Ecology Assessme...

  If you want to comment on this destructive development, you probably can't because the consultation has ended. I wonder who was on the list of consultees; certainly not those who showed an interest in the Amazon land application (or we would have been notified). Plans include: Development of a waterpark including demolition works, alterations, extensions and change of use to part of the existing Hotel building, construction of associated structures, landscaping, drainage, access and other incidental works, including provision of a new access road, SuDS pond and altered plant enclosure to serve the approved lodges scheme (Ref: 18/10413/FUL). With mega numbers of trees to be felled in this app. there will be a lot more back of house views like these...... The habitat loss will be offset to a compensation area of woodland in the south with a woodland management plan (cut and paste from last time).

The Planning Application: The conversion and change of use of the former Pump House building and associated land to Class E(g)(i) office use; and ancillary works including landscaping publicaccess.kingston.gov.uk   The Pump House:  links This the largest structure at Seething Wells, and is designated a Building of Townscape Merit. An application for statutory listed failed during 2001.   It has a pyramidal slate roof, used by roosting bats from time to time. There is no roof void and the slates are backed by wooden planks and plasterboard. Internally, there was one main room, partitioned into 6 small rooms and a larger operational area, now stripped out.    There is a deep shaft containing two wells below the building and four wells between the building and the Portsmouth Road. In the literature they are known as’ deep wells’ and sometimes ‘deep chambers’ of which there are 24 on site.    The Ecology report states that the building 'has no hibernation...

During 2019, I attended several Mulberry walks led by Peter Coles from Morus Londinium . In particular, we visited the Mulberries of Lewisham 13.2.19. From Elverson DLR station the road names - Silk Mill Road -  echo the 11 former silk mills that existed along the Ravensbourne.    The last mill closed in 1936 and our bonus was to meet a resident who remembered it working. Our walk  ended at the top of the Ravensbourne where there was  a massive old prostrate Mulberry in its own grounds, opposite Ladywell House, along Lewisham High Street. See more about Peter and his walks here on the subject-of-mulberries    Since our joyous visit, the site has been developed and the trees are destined to be felled under planning application DC/23/129956. Only four objections have been registered to date, although additional mature trees are due to be felled, which will have an effect on the character of the street scene.   The Mulberry will be replaced with a C...

This is work in progress and will be added to if time allows. Some of the comments require the results of FOI requests (see www.whatdotheyknow.com ). The comments do not follow the same order as the Draft Plan for this reason. Feel free to include any of the points made in your own comments see here  https://kingstonletstalk.co.uk/   In todays climate it is detail that is important as we lack terminological consensus & common goals in our 21st century complexity.  Our borough starts from a very low base for access to  nature. The  Fig. below from Greenspace Information for Greater London illustrates we are on a par with Lambeth for ease of access to nature. In the introduction  it states that Kingston has 39 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SINCs) but at  10.23 it mentions 45 SINCs so some consistency would perhaps lead to greater confidence in the soundness of the plan. I am querying the number of Nature Reserves cited as 12*, as I could...

What would you say if you only had 3 minutes to save 114 mature trees? https://historic-hospitals.com/2022/10/09/st-anns-hospital-tottenham/ The text below is a good start which Russell Miller relayed to the planning committee last week. Whilst councillors weren't listening, the evidenced based commentary will still be here when the natural environment and our children's future is firmly cemented under concrete. He attests: - 'However you spin it the fact is this development is bad for climate change, bad for wildlife, bad for air quality and increases car dependency. It fails local strategic planning policy objectives on Climate Change, Biodiversity, Air Quality, Walking and Cycling, Trees, as well as the GLA London Plan and Environment Strategy. 1. St Ann’s has a remarkable collection of trees, in an area of currently low (18.7%) canopy cover. This proposal’s will result in ‘the loss of 114 trees, 30 tree groups and 260.5m hedgerow’ –representing nearly a hectar...