Owen Paterson & this "biodiversity offsetting" thing…
Could some STW arboreal/planning types explain what is going on here? Is this because “ancient woodland” is often a sticking point in the planning process – and somebody has proposed a wizard wheeze to get around it?
What would stop developers digging up ancient/mature/established woodland – and replacing it with a (no doubt cheap) stand of monoculture on some waste ground, somewhere else? 😕Posted 4 years agohamishthecatMember
Biodiversity offsetting can work – for habitats that can be recreated – but it is at the bottom of the list of impact mitigation. Natural England is actively looking at it and there are various projects going on where it is being pursued.
However, the clue is in the name with Ancient Woodland – it cannot be recreated and Paterson is either an idiot or is starting to prepare the ground for a further weakening of measures to protect the natural environment from development.Posted 4 years ago
kid you not here, one of the ideas is to transplant the mud from ancient woodlands that are grubbed up to somewhere else where the woodland will be regrown. This is supposed to fast-track the woodland to become ancient. Bonkers.
its not as daft as it sounds, the soil mycorrhizal fungi play an important role in maintaining the biodiversity of ground flora, it is however largely pissing in the wind. Its good to do if you are trying to create a new diverse habitat but its not going to mitigate the losses when trying to replace somethingPosted 4 years agoeddie11Subscriber
99% of this country is managed by man. Only tiny parts if Scotland is true wilderness. Habitats can be improved by paying for better management that helps wildlife e.g. Blocking up moorland ditches so the peat bogs come back. A hypothecated tax on a developer could pay for that.Posted 4 years agonoteethMember
I don’t always agree with Moonbat, but he’s bang-on here:
The company that wants to build the service station wasn’t slow to see the possibilities. It is offering to replace Smithy Wood with “60,000 trees … planted on 16 hectares of local land close to the site”. Who cares whether a tree is a hunched and fissured coppiced oak, worked by people for centuries, or a sapling planted beside a slip-road with a rabbit guard around it?Posted 3 years agoNorthwindSubscriber
You can see how it could be acceptable for exceptional cases- serious infrastructure frinstance, where there’s constraints on where it can physically go. But for other building, nope. Just build somewhere else. What’s easier to relocate, ancient woodland, or a building that doesn’t yet exist?Posted 3 years ago
The topic ‘Owen Paterson & this "biodiversity offsetting" thing…’ is closed to new replies.