John Watson wrote:

---

Just a thought, and I'm not completely sure of my facts here, but isn't the term "Local Wildlife Sites" coined by The Wildlife Trusts, defined as "identified and selected locally using robust, scientifically-determined criteria and detailed ecological surveys"

As such, it presumably doesn't have any legal or formal governmental standing. Could that be why the term is being withdrawn from the government guidelines ?

Perhaps the key issue is what this phrase is to be replaced with (if anything), and how that is defined & implemented

---

Hi John

The term Local Wildlife Site replaced the mish mash of terms previously used across the country in planning policy that included SBI (site of Biological Importance) SINC (Site of Importance for Nature Conservation) etc. Some of these had an associated grading system, some didn't. None of these sites have ever had full legal protection - that's only sites such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Special Area of Conservation, National Nature Reserve etc - but they do receive protection in planning policy, although how much importance Local Planning Authorities place on these sites is variable. The Governments proposal would remove reference to these sites in local and national planning policy, thus in theory making it easier to destroy these sites. At least that's my understanding based on the petition text. Hope that helps

-- Edited by Craig Higson on Wednesday 9th of May 2018 12:29:35 PM

Just a thought, and I'm not completely sure of my facts here, but isn't the term "Local Wildlife Sites" coined by The Wildlife Trusts, defined as "identified and selected locally using robust, scientifically-determined criteria and detailed ecological surveys"

As such, it presumably doesn't have any legal or formal governmental standing. Could that be why the term is being withdrawn from the government guidelines ?

Perhaps the key issue is what this phrase is to be replaced with (if anything), and how that is defined & implemented

The starting point is that Greater Manchester now has the ambition to be a world-leading Green City Region, so we need extra protection for Sites of Biological Importance, not less or none! The government has given Greater Manchester the title Urban Pioneer in terms of Natural Capital, so how we are supposed to implement this without environmental protections (or money!), I'm not sure

The Greater Manchester Green Summit in March 2018 was jam-packed, there are now in the region of 50 Save The Greenbelt groups around Greater Manchester, and campaigns such as Save Pomona have attracted thousands of people via petition, so there is the potential for a big environmental movement here, organisation, communication and working together are key

No, it's not eye-catching. It needs to say "URGENT" or "THIS ONE'S REALLY SERIOUS" to get attention.

There are many threats to wildlife habitats & numerous petitions around, and at face value this appears to be yet another, & so will not get as much attention as it deserves

The Wildlife Trusts should really use 38Degrees (or similar) to get an audience of 200,000 +

Gove (DEFRA) has a lot to answer for

I've signed, of course

It's a little disappointing that a new thread with such an eye catching banner, on a nature-based website, has only been viewed 133 times, including several re-visits from a few of us.

In the same time period, there have been over ten times that many visitors to the forum. I am not sure how else we can attract those forum visitors who seem to concentrate on the sightings section to view the discussion section?

I tweeted a brief description of the plans to the three Tameside MPs, including the link. Of the three, Andrew Gwynne retweeted, Jonathan Reynolds acknowledged it, and Angela Rayner did not respond. The tweet was viewed by 1970 people, some of whom will hopefully sign the petition.

It is an eye-wateringly awful proposal, and one of which I was completely unaware until Steve's post.



-- Edited by David Walsh on Tuesday 8th of May 2018 10:13:20 PM

Steve Suttill wrote:

---

This is absolutely outrageous!

I've signed the petition of course...

---

Yes Steve, I couldn't agree with you more. If these proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (the planner's bible) are implemented every Local Wildlife Site in the country could potentially be under threat from development. It isn't difficult to imagine who is behind these proposals and hard to think of a greater threat to our natural habitats and wildlife given the area covered by these sites nationally.

The boundaries of Greater Manchester's Sites of Biological Importance can be viewed on the GMLRC MapApp https://gmwildlife.org.uk/mapapp/

Steve

Signed and shared. This Government is, imho, the worst yet ;-(

This is absolutely outrageous!

I've signed the petition of course...

I appreciate that we are bombarded with petitions these days, but the government's proposal to remove all references to Local Wildlife Sites (Sites of Biological Importance) in the draft new National Planning Policy Framework really is, in my personal opinion, a major threat to some of our most important habitats in Greater Manchester and the species that depend upon these areas. Please do sign this. If it goes through, as proposed, it won't be long before the bulldozers are moving in to a wildlife site near you, where ever you live!

Planning Policy Consultation
Government

NPPF 2018 consultation response and Local Wildlife Sites
Dear Sir/Madam,
With reference to the National Planning Policy Framework draft text for consultation, I wish to respond as follows.
Local Wildlife Sites are an essential part of protecting our natural heritage for future generations. These are the places where much of our wildlife lives. I am concerned to see that Local Wildlife Sites have been removed from the draft text of the NPPF and believe they need reinstating.
There are three places within the revised NPPF where reference to Local Wildlife Sites must be made. The three places are where the guidance:
1. describes "sustainable development" - Local Wildlife Sites should be included in the list of places where there is not a presumption in favour of development
2. requires local councils to identify and map local wildlife-rich habitats - Local Wildlife Sites should be a critical part of these maps;
3. sets out the principles to be applied when determining planning applications, in order to avoid harm to biodiversity.
I request that Local Wildlife Sites are referenced in all these sections.
Please accept this as my formal response to the consultation. I look forward to hearing from you as the review progresses.

Here is the link

Save Local Wildlife Sites