Article: Waste land or 'brownfield' sites are vital for wildlife
- Thread starter Tony
- Start date
Absolutely agree. Much of the countryside is protected 'green belt' land, but this is mainly improved agricultural land, and often a desert of perrenial ryegrass and little else. Brownfield sites are much more diverse in terms of habitats, and therefore in terms of species diversity, but they are almost always earmarked for development by local authorities.
The other problem is that there is no clear definition of what constitutes a brownfirld site. usually it means something vague like "past industrial use", and this is so open to interpretation that planning authorities can classify brownfield land whenever they want, and thus make it available for development.
Personally, I rather see protection for brownfield sites than for some of these grass wastelands that are greenfield sites.
The other problem is that there is no clear definition of what constitutes a brownfirld site. usually it means something vague like "past industrial use", and this is so open to interpretation that planning authorities can classify brownfield land whenever they want, and thus make it available for development.
Personally, I rather see protection for brownfield sites than for some of these grass wastelands that are greenfield sites.
We're having to fight hard to protect Crompton Moor, a "brownfield site" owned by our local council that they want to turn into a mountain bike centre. This flies in the face of the wishes of the majority of people that visit and care for the area.
They've already taken one section which has been turned from a beautiful area of mixed scrub and heather into a bike track that was subsequently burned to the ground by the kids that got bored of it in just a few months.
We're doing our best to keep them from ruining the rest of the place which has some of the finest biodiversity in the Greater Manchester area.
It's an uphill battle though.
They've already taken one section which has been turned from a beautiful area of mixed scrub and heather into a bike track that was subsequently burned to the ground by the kids that got bored of it in just a few months.
We're doing our best to keep them from ruining the rest of the place which has some of the finest biodiversity in the Greater Manchester area.
It's an uphill battle though.
I always find its best to remind them that while these kids may benefit and them burnt it down, They can't vote !
While you on the other hand can. It tend to get their attention if they think that it's going to loose them votes
Wayland - it is indeed an 'uphill battle'. My wife used to work for a conservation charity, and was involved in the fight to save West Thorrock Marshes. Although a power station had been built on what were once grazing marshes (which sounds very unnatural). However, as the power station closed down, nature moved in, and its become home to 1,200 species of bug, bird and reptile, many of them extremely rare.
Of course someone wanted to build on it (the Royal Mail), and someone wanted to let them (the local Development Corporation - which as such, had extraordinary powers). The charity (and others) did their best to fight the plan over three years, with very limited resources, and almost won. The problem is that brownfield legally means just that. Its former industrial land, and thus regarding as having no natural value, even though this site is probably the second most important inverterbrete site in the UK.
Brownfield sites basically have no protection from development, no matter what wildlife is on them. You can have more protection on a piece of 'countryside', with far less biodiversity on it, simply because the latter is 'countryside'. And of course a local authority will vote in favour of development not just for the usual economic reasons, but also because they are working to national targets for building. And they may actaully own the site...
Thats not to say you should never build on brownfield, and its certainly preferable to building on a greenfield site, which will never been greenfield again, but there should be the same level of protection for biodiversity and important habitants that there would be for a greenfield site.
Of course someone wanted to build on it (the Royal Mail), and someone wanted to let them (the local Development Corporation - which as such, had extraordinary powers). The charity (and others) did their best to fight the plan over three years, with very limited resources, and almost won. The problem is that brownfield legally means just that. Its former industrial land, and thus regarding as having no natural value, even though this site is probably the second most important inverterbrete site in the UK.
Brownfield sites basically have no protection from development, no matter what wildlife is on them. You can have more protection on a piece of 'countryside', with far less biodiversity on it, simply because the latter is 'countryside'. And of course a local authority will vote in favour of development not just for the usual economic reasons, but also because they are working to national targets for building. And they may actaully own the site...
Thats not to say you should never build on brownfield, and its certainly preferable to building on a greenfield site, which will never been greenfield again, but there should be the same level of protection for biodiversity and important habitants that there would be for a greenfield site.
My local authority merged their Conservation department with their Planning department, and put the head of Planning in charge. Massive amounts of species rich habitat has been lost since, mainly on brownfield sites, and all of the remaining ones are being fought over.
Scots_Charles_River
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
The Jupiter Centre, and Urban Wildlife centre, started off as a brownfield site and is now a Wildlife reserve. I have posted about it previously.
We have a situation where a former lawnmower driver is now in charge of "Greenspaces development" and while we play things by the book he is prepared to lie and cheat his way through the entire process.
On paper we've beaten the barstool through every stage but it makes no difference because he changes the rules at every opportunity.
I just wish we could find the "brown envelopes" involved because there is definitely something dishonest going on.
On paper we've beaten the barstool through every stage but it makes no difference because he changes the rules at every opportunity.
I just wish we could find the "brown envelopes" involved because there is definitely something dishonest going on.
Similar threads
