Owen Paterson & this "biodiversity offsetting" thing…

Home Forum Chat Forum Owen Paterson & this "biodiversity offsetting" thing…

Viewing 21 posts - 1 through 21 (of 21 total)
  • Owen Paterson & this "biodiversity offsetting" thing…
  • noteeth
    Member

    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? 😕

    Ancient woodland could be destroyed to make way for building in ‘offsetting’ push

    gwaelod
    Member

    I heard about this and thought it was something the Daily Mash had dreamt up.

    Premier Icon scotroutes
    Subscriber

    OP – you have it in one.

    I agree you have pretty much nailed it. Its a way to allow more development of sensitive sites and try to convince idiots its fine. You cannot recreate ancient habitats.

    Premier Icon Rusty Spanner
    Subscriber

    The same reason we build new houses instead of renovating old ones:

    It’s horrible, destructive, unsympathic, short termism.
    But someone, somewhere is getting a bung.

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    Yep a con.

    rogerthecat
    Member

    Owen Paterson displaying his true colours.

    hamishthecat
    Member

    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.

    Premier Icon eddie11
    Subscriber

    Current situation: build on (say) woodland you’ve lost it. Hard luck.

    Biodiversity offsetting: build on woodland, get a new or improved habitat of sorts elsewhere to replace it.

    Is it perfect? No. Is it better than we have at the minute? Yes

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    Is it perfect? No. Is it better than we have at the minute? Yes

    How about we exhaust the brownfield sites and old RAF airfield stuff first then look at ancient woodlands?

    jambourgie
    Member

    Probably because the developers know that land that’s already near an ancient woodland will be worth more than some old brownfield site.

    Premier Icon slowoldman
    Subscriber

    Hey here’s a good idea. Since all the remaining ancient woodland is fragmented, why not dig it all up and replant it in one big desolate area – that’s probably somewhere up North, then concrete over what’s left.

    csb
    Member

    I 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.

    get a new or improved habitat

    how do you create an improved habitat

    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 something

    Premier Icon eddie11
    Subscriber

    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.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    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?

    Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    Am I changing, or is George? Or is it just that I didn’t used to realise I actually agreed with a lot of what he wrote? (to be fair he does still write some complete tosh).

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    Can we offset Moonbat?

    grum
    Member

    Paterson is also a climate change denier and appears to have no understanding of science. Perfect environment secretary for this government.

Viewing 21 posts - 1 through 21 (of 21 total)

The topic ‘Owen Paterson & this "biodiversity offsetting" thing…’ is closed to new replies.