More bug huggery

Indeed it has no coast..
But it is preparing a Local Plan together with Colchester and Tendring who both have quite extensive coast..

The same document should be available on the respective web sites.
 
I'm curious, what do you actually object to in the document. Or do you just get wound up by such things on general principles? :p

'Cos I've had a quick speed read and I really can't see anything to lose any sleep over. Without checks and controls the very thing that attracts me, and presumably many others, to spend my leisure time on (and off) the local coast (and thus transfer significant amounts of my disposable income into the local economy) would be damaged if not lost altogether
 
Bru said:
I'm curious, what do you actually object to in the document. Or do you just get wound up by such things on general principles? :p

'Cos I've had a quick speed read and I really can't see anything to lose any sleep over. Without checks and controls the very thing that attracts me, and presumably many others, to spend my leisure time on (and off) the local coast (and thus transfer significant amounts of my disposable income into the local economy) would be damaged if not lost altogether
Click to expand...

I object to a very small but vociferous group of people being given rights and priveledges over the vast majority of people. This document is being published in response to a single intrest presure group getting their hobby onto the statute books.

I would think most people would get upset if jet skiiers or day fishermen had rights over everyone else. Yet when the eco mob demand restrictions over other people, it,s all fine and dandy. Yet the eco mob are a tiny port of the population as a whole. ... indeed active eco buggers are probably fewer in number than sailors.
 
Tomahawk said:
I object to a very small but vociferous group of people being given rights and priveledges over the vast majority of people. This document is being published in response to a single intrest presure group getting their hobby onto the statute books.

I would think most people would get upset if jet skiiers or day fishermen had rights over everyone else. Yet when the eco mob demand restrictions over other people, it,s all fine and dandy. Yet the eco mob are a tiny port of the population as a whole. ... indeed active eco buggers are probably fewer in number than sailors.
Click to expand...

Interesting viewpoint

And yet ...

Are you happy then if the Crouch and Orwell end up resembling the River Hamble?

Would you be happy to see the environment needed by the seals and the birds etc and so on destroyed by commercial exploitation?

Can you live with Hamford Water being turned into a leisure theme park?

I;m not sure where you get the link between this document and a single pressure group anyway, I think that is in your mind (and I share your dislike of the RSPB!)

Not do I see any proposals to significantly restrict or impact upon our current level of activities (although I concede that some restrictions may become, indeed may already, be necessary)

Without protection, the coastal environment we love and enjoy will ultimately cease to be the coastal environment we love and enjoy

And as the population inevitably grows, the pressure on such environments grows too. Leave it to market forces, fail to protect our environment and heritage, and next thing you know it will be gone

Does the leisure and pleasure of a relatively modest number of people take precedence over preserving and maintaining the environment and heritage of the British Isles
 
I do as well. I appreciate at first sight it feels rather like 'another eco backlash' but if the document is balanced (and I am not commenting upon whether it is as fair and as good as it could be) I think it quite important. The object of the document is:

"This Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) focuses on the mitigation that is necessary to protect the wildlife of the Essex coast from the increased visitor pressure associated with new residential development in combination with other plans and projects, and how this mitigation will be funded."
 
A quick skim through the document suggests to me that it enables councils' planning departments to use the habitat protection rationale to charge additional planning fees which are supposed to be reserved for suitable purposes. It'll be interesting to see whether that ends up with any detectable transparency!

Not sure it will result in any detectable protection of recreational amenity.
 
Quite: funding rather than protection. Hence my cautionary comment. The trouble is until everybody realises the major problem is the size of the world's population........
 
rgarside said:
A quick skim through the document suggests to me that it enables councils' planning departments to use the habitat protection rationale to charge additional planning fees which are supposed to be reserved for suitable purposes. It'll be interesting to see whether that ends up with any detectable transparency!

Not sure it will result in any detectable protection of recreational amenity.
Click to expand...

Well if the council does nothing we accuse them of criminal neglect of their duties concerning the environment. If they do something we accuse them of not being able to offer an ideal solution in dealing with a problem whose roots are the massive excess of humans on our poor globe, or we accuse them of money grabbing.

Its an impossible task. The environment would be better off if all except farmers, stayed in our cities rather than sprawling willy nilly across the land, but we all want more room
 
Tomahawk said:
Which puts a bird above a baby... A fish before your family.
I think people are more important than animals.
Click to expand...

That is meaningless if it means that people of the future will be compelled to live in an urban environment with the very real benefits of country, maritime and wild- life only available as historical film or as virtual experience. There are any reasons why the countryside matters. It is interesting for its own sake as well as being good for mental health. It forms an interconnected whole and is part of our (fairly) healthy environment and helps to sustain it. A rich ecosystem is necessary for food production and to enable it to adapt to future changes, and it was the memory of the British rural scene that sustained most of our troops in the last war. Nobody is suggesting sacrificing babies in favour of godwits but we often choose to spend public money on things that don't appear to be of immediate benefit because things such as sport and the arts are also seen to be essential.
 
Bru said "Can you live with Hamford Water being turned into a leisure theme park?"

Interesting, because the man who runs the seals trips from the Town Creek at Walton has started a campaign to try and restrict access to some of the remote creeks of the Backwaters. Even the Titchmarsh office and the chandlery had petitions to sign in support of restricting access. I think he started this because to rival sea spotting boats started last year. Of course he thinks he should still be allowed access......

But on the other hand, the new housing behind Bedwells truly looks appalling, because it's so close to the yard. How soon before the new owners agitate to have the back yard at Bedwells tidied up? My skimming reading of this document is is a planning framework and so might help restrict the ugly overdevelopment which is happening all around Walton/Kirby and nearby currently.
 
Tomahawk said:
Which puts a bird above a baby... A fish before your family.
I think people are more important than animals.
Click to expand...


And will the baby grow up in a world where there are natural wonders to see? Unspoilt places to explore? Will the baby experience the wonder of seeing seals basking on a sandback? Oyster Catchers wading on the margins of a salt marsh?

Will the family be able to escape the noise and bustle of the concrete jungle and go for walks in the unspoilt countryside? Visit heritage sites of historical interest? Sail the remaining unspoilt waters around our coast?

Will the food on the family's table be grown in fields on farms or will it be produced in a vat in a factory when all the land has been built on and all the birds and insects necessary for a balanced ecosystem have become extinct because their breeding grounds have been destroyed and their food sources wiped out? (If you think this is extreme, consider the very real and current problems with pollination of some crops due to the decline in the bee population)

Is your Utopian dream really to turn the world in which we live into a concrete jungle monoculture where only people matter and where, if you have the wealth of course, you can do whatever you please and to hell with the consequences? Because that is the logical and inescapable outcome of unrestricted development and exploitation of the land and natural resources

And I note you still haven't addressed the question of what it is about this specific document you dislike
 
Walks in unspoiled countryside...

Whare are you coming from? There is absolutely no unspoiled land in any part of the UK. Every acre of land on this island is managed and tended by humans. Even the parts that are described as wildlife sancutaries are subjected to intensive management my humans.

As happens we do quite a lot of walking .. (as long as there is a pub enroute). The odd thing is that we never see anyone. One would expect that lots of people would be taking the air and enjoying the open space if it is so important to the population at large... but no. It seems for all the hype about walks in countryside being soooooo terribly important, most people go to the park in town or the shopping centre.
 
rgarside said:
Not sure it will result in any detectable protection of recreational amenity.
Click to expand...


This is not about protecting recreational amenity but about protecting birds and worms from humans who may be trying to enjoy a bit of recreational amenity. The assumption behind the document is that human recreation is harmful and must be restricted.

This is for the benefit of a small number of people who like looking at various birds or other animals.It's like Studland
Bay where a self interest group is trying to prevent people from having access to the area so they can have the place to themselves.
 
Tomahawk said:
Walks in unspoiled countryside...

Whare are you coming from? There is absolutely no unspoiled land in any part of the UK. Every acre of land on this island is managed and tended by humans. Even the parts that are described as wildlife sancutaries are subjected to intensive management my humans.

As happens we do quite a lot of walking .. (as long as there is a pub enroute). The odd thing is that we never see anyone. One would expect that lots of people would be taking the air and enjoying the open space if it is so important to the population at large... but no. It seems for all the hype about walks in countryside being soooooo terribly important, most people go to the park in town or the shopping centre.
Click to expand...

Unspoilt as in the sense of unspoilt, not unmanaged wilderness

You're obviously walking in the wrong places if you never see anyone

And what of it anyway? You're still not addressing the points I've made which have nothing to do with whether people USE the countryside etc. or not (but of course they do) and everything to do with the importance of the countryside etc. to our overall wealth, health and happiness
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top