The statement seems to say all the right things and the proposal does not seem as disasterous as first thought. However the success of any project like this depends on sympathic experienced management. We know LWT have got it but are a bit aloof and don't take local advice, and I have never heard of Red Rose Forest - has anyone else.
If proper planning and meetings which include Judith or Ian take place it may work, but someone with more knowledge of the area may still think differently. I do think bringing everything out into the open has had a beneficial effect anyway.

Mike

Having read these proposals I have two worrying concerns.
Firstly it is proposed that LWT manage part of the site,the way they have destroyed the nationally important Jack Snipe roost on Chat Moss gives me great cause for concern that they are capable of properly managing this site.
Secondly as Red Rose Forest are managing the remainder of the site,and are part of the Forestry Commission I can foresee massive tree planting.If this were to happen it could destroy the open areas of the site,and potentially dry out the boggy/marshy areas,with the resultant loss of this important habitat.

The following is a statement on the proposed purchase and plans for Lightshaw Hall Flash and adjacent land. It has been issued by the 'partners' involved in the purchase and I thank them for giving us an insight into their view.


Community Forests North West (CFNW) are proposing to purchase approximately 18ha of land at Lightshaw Hall, which includes a significant portion of land that is contained within the Abram Flashes SSSI. This unit of ‘the flashes’ is classed by Natural England as being in unfavourable condition.

The intention of CFNW is to lease the land within the SSSI to the Lancashire Wildlife Trust, who would then manage and maintain this area of the site. The remainder of the site would be managed and maintained by Red Rose Forest.

Purchasing the land at this site would bring the SSSI into sympathetic management and maintenance which would help ensure that the condition of the SSSI moves towards improving rather than unfavourable. As a consequence, we would expect the area to become more suitable for the bird assemblages identified within the site citation as the habitat improves.

The project would also aim to deliver some ‘new habitat’ in the form of scrapes and ditches which would also benefit other species such as Water Voles and Dragon and Damselfly species.

We have had to show the wider benefits of the proposals in order to attract funding for both the purchase and the subsequent long term management and maintenance of the site. Unfortunately it is increasingly difficult to attract funding purely for nature conservation benefits so to meet these other requirements, limited footpath access has been proposed for the site. To minimise disturbance it is proposed that the footpath will be placed behind a raised bund for some of its length. The remaining section of footpath would only be accessible outside of the breeding season, and access would be controlled by the site managers. It may be possible to ‘tweak’ the design but this would be dependent on agreement from Heritage Lottery Fund who we have applied to for funding. We would also like to point out that there are no plans to raise footpaths to prevent them from flooding.

We acknowledge that the field between Lightshaw Hall and the flash has been used as a breeding habitat by species such as Redshank and Shelduck. There is concern that the path and bund could sever the continuity between the field and the flash and we will consider this information when finalising designs for the site. By managing the site in a better way we expect this will actively encourage these species to nest within the confines of the SSSI.

We should also consider that the agricultural use of the field adjacent to the site (which is outside of the SSSI boundary) could change and make this area unsuitable for these species in the long term. Any changes to the agricultural usage of this field would be outside the control of any of the Nature Conservation Organisations.

It is also worth noting that the proposed works are within the SSSI boundary, any works would need the prior approval of Natural England, who have responsibility to prevent any damage to this site and its interest features.


It has been mentioned that flooding is impacting on the site. The Environment Agency has no statutory powers to allow it to enter land to undertake work for nature conservation benefit. They may however be able to help in situations where land is in sympathetic ownership as part of a partnership project.

None of the partners involved in this project wish to have an adverse impact on the site, or the species within it. , We hope that the birding community will play a key role in the development and management of this site in the future.

Lightshaw Hall Flash is a site I visit rarely but always enjoy when I do. I was taken there for the first time back in August 2006 by a couple of kind birders who I had just bumped into at Pennington Flash (I've got John & Brian down in my notebook so thanks again if you recognise yourselves). None of us knew each other in those days and this website either didn't exist, or perhaps it was just starting.

We went to see a Spotted Redshank, the only one I've ever seen in GM so I rightly regard it as a special place

I agree that the ideal for this site would be careful management for wildlife. And as Ian says it is a shame that the main stumbling block, the proximity of the new footpath to the flash, seems unalterable, but you can't 'part-oppose' this plan so my letter has just gone into the post box.

Cheers, John

I don't think the area is big enough for them, Mike, and the trouble is that the Lancs WT have already bought Dover Basin "next door" anyway. Also the RSPB are about to open their first reserve in GM at Dove Stones. RRF have exchanged contracts with the farmer I understand, but these are conditional on their grant application being successful, I think.

A really good post Judith, really enlightening about an area I Know nothing about. the last sentence made me think a bit, can't we approach the RSPB, it seems as good a cause as some of the other things we donate to, or have you already been thro' this exercise with Abrams flash?.

Mike

I suppose RRF have to justify their existence (like everyone else they need to keep their jobs in a difficult economic time) by looking for new areas, and I suspect the farmer wants to sell land which he can do nothing with. The person to answer your questions is Tony Hothersall, Director of RRF, on 0161 855 3707. However, he is not a birdwatcher, and like all the general public, he doesn't appear to understand that birds and people just don't co-exist in close proximity to each other. This is an obvious fact to us, but not to 99% of the population. Therefore it's not a lot of use involving councillors, for the same reason. There are still many more dogwalkers than birders!

With regard to what will happen to the site if RRF don't get it (Ian asks that question) the answer is, probably nothing. When a site is a SSSI, any new activities have to have what are called "consents" from Natural England. It may be that in this case, the consents were not given, as the guy in charge of the site has been off sick for a long time. Natural England are looking into this. No harmful development should be allowed by NE, as this would be a PDO (Potentially Damaging Operation) which is against the law and can be an offence. Lightshaw seems to go on very well by itself, the flooding (see below) preventing too much succession. In my 25 years of observations and censusing there, it hasn't changed much, other than a couple of islands being put on the main lake to lessen the silting up, about 3 years ago, by the farmer. That enabled the Oystercatchers to breed, and probably other stuff as well.

One major problem in the Abram Flashes SSSI, particularly at Dover and Lightshaw, and also Pennington Flash, is the flash flooding of the Hey Brook due to urban run-off in Hindley. Levels are frequently up 2m if there is heavy rainfall, and such floods are becoming more frequent, worryingly in May. There is a EA document on the site's flooding dated 2000, and they are currently working on a hydraulic model to address it, but , not surprisingly considering Cockermouth etc, they tell me it is unlikely that flood defence money could be made available for an area where there is no threat to human dwellings. I have a meeting in January with the EA about this so may know more then, but am not hopeful as anything they could do will cost a great deal.

If this footpath and bridge (supposed to be removable to prevent access at "sensitive" times of the year, but it's very close to the most vulnerable areas anyway) were built, the frequent flooding would mean that the paths would have to be raised very considerably if they were to be of use, and the bridge would have to be wider and higher than might be thought when normal levels prevail. What a waste of taxpayers' money when there is a perfectly good footpath to connect the towpath and Lightshaw Lane, along the old railway!

I suspect RRF is not the kind of organisation that can just manage a site for the birds alone, ie without a footpath. It's probably written into their constitution that they have to involve the public, and that they have to plant trees. We really needed the RSPB to buy the site, for it to be managed for birds alone.

There is little doubt that the site would benefit from some management, particularly of the water levels which affect it so badly at times and for that reason most of the plans are positive. Unfortunately, in order to secure the funding to purchase the land it must include some pathways to open up the area for the public, it seems the two go hand in hand. So, the proposed path is part of that plan to secure the funding and we are left with our opposition to that admittedly very small but practically huge stumbling block. I feel sure there must be somewhere else a path could run without being in such close proximity of the flash itself, leaving the flash well alone and viewable from a distance only. The general public who visit surely wouldn't care that they couldn't get the vertical fore-flank stripe on that Green-winged Teal with their naked eyes, would they? Opening up some of the other areas may have no real effect on the site and may well be beneficial, it seems our focus should be on this one path and what, if anything, can be done about it?

Pete Astles wrote:

---

Ian whats the driver to have it developed. Is it public need / requests or are there commercial factors as well. Given the huge public country park right in the areas Virdor / Wigan Flashes / Pennington its hard to see who wants it developed.

---

This is a point i drew attention to in my letter. There is certainly no shortage of public accessable country parks in this area so why create more in the most sensitive area.

Also it doesn't really matter how close the path is to the breeding areas, we all know that dog walkers(not all) frequently let their dogs stray from the paths to retrieve sticks thrown into the vital areas. So while the people on the path might cause limited disturbance, the dogs running wild will be disastrous for the birds.

Dean.

-- Edited by Dean Macdonald on Tuesday 8th of December 2009 10:30:12 PM

The top and bottom of it is surely the positioning of the "proposed footpath" cutting across the flash and going so close to the water. This would undoubtedly cause both visible and noise disturbance. Would the proposed path not be better situated around the perimeter (if logistically possible) farther away from the water allowing wildlife to go about there daily business in peace? Unless there is going to be screens/hides etc. If this goes ahead what about future management of the site? all we have to look at is a proposed map with no further details of the development.

Ian whats the driver to have it developed. Is it public need / requests or are there commercial factors as well. Given the huge public country park right in the areas Virdor / Wigan Flashes / Pennington its hard to see who wants it developed.

In order to develope some further discussion on this matter, hopefully including someone from the development side of things I will add a few musings that will hopefully generate something I'd rather we all had a clear view of exactly the problem and that it was open for public viewing and dissection if necessary.

It seems from all opposition and certainly myself that the whole problem with the plans lies with the proposed path along the flash itself. That the remainder of the proposed plans would undoubtably be a positive attribute to the site and perhaps long overdue, it seems unfortunate that the problems lies with this one area. There are those better postitioned and with better knowledge of why this path is such a bad idea in our/my opinion and hopefully they will air their views onto this thread.

I have spoken to members(s) of the 'developement team' (loose terminolgoy there ) and have found them to be highly instructive, compassionate and understandable. I have some assurance that the bunded path can be worked in such a way that would not disturb wildlife but is there any leeway, any movement on it's positioning? What are our views on this bunded path that seems to be a major stumbling block. What must be considered is what will happen to the site should the plans not go through. That I don't know and likely neither does anyone else, that's the lottery.

So I implore you to add your thoughts on here for us all to view, just keep it constructive or you'll find it's dissapeared It's only right that we all have a better picture of why we are opposing the plans, it's not the plans as a whole, just the location of the path along the flash itself.

Ian, I agree, opening a footpath so close to the flash will not be a good thing at all, my letter will be in the post tomorrow.

Thanks for the support so far.

It seems a shame that some level of management for the site would be a good thing but unfortunately opening it up for the public seems to always be involved. Those who know the site well (and they have all been involved) know that the proposed footpath along the southern side of the flash will damage the site for the important breeding birds it is known for. The proximity of that footpath to the flash itself will also be detremental to passage and wintering waders and wildfowl.

There will undoubtably be arguments for and against but those against may not wish to voice them publically here. If you have an alternative view then please contact me privately and I will post that view for myself. I am always keen on having both sides of any argument evenly voiced if possible. We have been accused of potentially shooting ourselves in the foot over this one so it is important that we fully understand what is going on here for both sides of the argument. I know my reasons for being against it and have perhaps wrongly asked others support it without that intimate knowledge, so if anyone has any queries lease ask on here or privately. they will be answered.

I,ve been it,s a lovely place and Judith,s map in the 2005 report is excellent.

Just putting stamp on letter now.

Keep Birding

Wrote my letter last night - will get posted this am.

GM doesn't have that many decent nature/birding sites so let's try and defend what we do have!


Cheers,

Bill.

For those unsure of it,s location,A to Z page 106 4b,thankfully it does look very bland and remote,but thats it,s secret,it,s not that you can,t get there you just don,t need to (but you,ll need a decent scope)it,s mostly covered under the ABRAM FLASHES thread on the
forum but a full guide is on the websiteand Judith has highlighted this site in the 2005 county report(Broad Billed Sandpiper 1971,dream on the sub 200).Saturday sunday morning guided trudge down the banking i,m up for that

write the letter,i,m sure that e,mails have no legal standing

cheers geoff

Letter in the post.

Dean.

Apologies to Natural England! I had a reply almost by return and they are quite concerned; a lady called Rosemary Budd will contact me. It may have slipped through the net after all.

I saw your appeal and have just typed out my letter; it will be posted off in the morning.

I've never been there but that's absolutely beside the point, it's part of an SSSI and somebody's local patch, so please spend just ten minutes and the cost of a stamp!

Mines gone - power to the people

Mike

Ian Campbell wrote:

---

Just spent 5 minutes writing my letter and I've never been to the Flash or even know where it is!!!
Cheers Ian

---

Thanks Ian. That's the whole point I suppose, we'd all do the same for Elton should it need it. Manky Birders unite and all that

Just spent 5 minutes writing my letter and I've never been to the Flash or even know where it is!!!
Cheers Ian

Thanks for your support already, folks. If anyone would like to see my letter please contact me on judith@gmbirds.freeserve.co.uk.

I have contacted someone fairly senior at Natural England, who have to approve any developments connected with SSSIs, to find out if they have given consent. Apparently the guy who deals with this SSSI is off work long-term so it may have slipped through. But given my experiences trying to get replies from them about other PDOs at 2 other SSSIs in this area earlier this year, don't hold your breath.

The Heritage Lottery Fund probably have far more applications than they have money, so let's make sure this is turned down straight away.

Has a local authority planning application gone in yet ?

I have written in too. The guy to write to is

Richard Fowler - Grants Officer
The Heritage Lottery Fund
9th Floor
82 King Street
Manchester, M2 4WQ

His email is richardf@hls.org.uk

However I suggest writing is better.

If anyone wishes to see my letter to crib off PM me.

Ian / All is it possible to get the local councillors on side ?

Ian McKerchar wrote:

---

Lightshaw Hall Flash urgently needs your help.

Plans have recently been submitted that will destroy the huge importance of Lightshaw Hall Flash for birds. As such, the site needs YOUR help to object to these plans.

I would ask that you take the time to read the plans and details on the county notice board of the Manchester Birding website and most importantly take 5 minutes and a first class stamp to forward your objection. All the details are there but should you need any more please contact Judith Smith or leave a post on this thread.

The importance of your contribution on this matter cannot be underestimated, without it, Lightshaw Hall Flash will be destroyed. So let's see what a band of people from a website can achieve, are you willing to see another area of incedible importance be destroyed? When it's gone, it's gone...

---

Done-
everyone needs to do this,don't sit back-heres another link to object but in wrighting is always best if you have time .

NorthWest@hlf.org.uk

-- Edited by JOHN TYMON on Monday 7th of December 2009 01:29:36 PM

Lightshaw Hall Flash urgently needs your help.

Plans have recently been submitted that will destroy the huge importance of Lightshaw Hall Flash for birds. As such, the site needs YOUR help to object to these plans.

I would ask that you take the time to read the plans and details on the county notice board of the Manchester Birding website and most importantly take 5 minutes and a first class stamp to forward your objection. All the details are there but should you need any more please contact Judith Smith or leave a post on this thread.

The importance of your contribution on this matter cannot be underestimated, without it, Lightshaw Hall Flash will be destroyed. So let's see what a band of people from a website can achieve, are you willing to see another area of incedible importance be destroyed? When it's gone, it's gone...

-- Edited by Ian McKerchar on Thursday 10th of December 2009 04:50:38 PM