I showed up at 10-30am, no birders just the presentation team seemingly led by the LWT project officer Mark Champion. After a look at the plan and a read of the posters he and I had a chat and he was quite forthcoming, assuring me that no work would be done during the breeding season etc. I asked if there was a program of work and was told no as planning permission has not been granted yet. I also asked about communication, i.e. would the forum be kept abreast of things and he was a bit dismissive, saying he didn't think there was anything to be gained by it. I explained that Manchester birders relied on the forum for info they would not otherwise hear about, explained about Cutacre, Peat liciences on the moss etc and he just replied he had got Ians tel. no. if he needed to talk to him. Thats it then, the local birders for this patch may need to keep the forum informed.

Mike

I hope everyone took a bit of time to check this out today,as Ian said there were many protestors,at the time,but more people who checked the plans and were happy with them or against them,could at least give your view todayI saw Dennis Ath,Charlie Owen & Goeff Hargreaves,all present and correct,thanks.
The plans seemed fine to me,but im not really one of the local patchers there anymore,so the area has changed a lot anyway since i used to visit regularly.

Those interested in this project (and there were lots who objected originally so I assume are/were interested) should check the county notice board on the Manchester Birding website for details of an imminent "meet and greet" about the project.

Ian McKerchar wrote:

---

Rob Thorpe wrote:

---

I personally don't see why anyone, birder or non-birder, scope or no scope, would need to get so close to the flash itself...

---

perhaps for the seperation of Least and Long-toed Stint

---

or another Broad Billed Sandpiper -1971 Lightshaw Hall Flash 31st May found if my memory is right by one of them local birders Mr C Owen

Odd that our original coversation on the subject when it first reared it's head did not indicate that opinion and indeed you felt at that time that closer viewing would be a bonus. Nor had you indicated to me personally anything otherwise since. But, it's an opinion and may well, in the course of time, prove valid but personally I think our focus now should be on our involvement in the subsequent habitat management and implementation of the entire plans. You will likely have the chance to become involved in this process, should you desire so I suggest you contact one of those previously mentioned 'local' birders who will be happy to discuss it.

So let me get this right, as it is likely the hidden path will be 'policed' via a large ditch to prevent unauthorised access, you are suggesting that so is the path to the viewing screens? And therefore that, as they would be unaccessable, the screens are uneccessary and paths leading to them? And that in fact we are ok with our current viewing arrangement from the canal bank as atleast some of us have scopes?

What, with a large ditch and drawbridge? How will birders get across

Yes it was discussed but one wonders how we would police such a ban of dog walkers and their dogs?

As for the views of the 5 birders, I suggest you contact them personally as three of them do not visit this forum but I can happily pass on the email addresses for two of them (one of them doesn't have an email address!) and they will be only too happy to discuss the matter with you.

As I purported to in my last post Rob, after speaking to yourself at the time this all arose and other Lightshaw users, the footpath in the proposals at Lightshaw was the crux of the issue. Certainly, this thread was generated in support of the removal of that path and those many letters which were sent in complaint/concern from users of this forum were sent in over the footpath. With the footpath gone one wonders what we are not happy about now regarding the proposals? If there is something we are missing then I feel sure it would be in the best interest of Lightshaw to bring it up.

If our concern is now that 'we' were not consulted first before those 'local' birders agreed on the new plans then I will apologise as it was considered that those persons present (and the input from Judith throughout) represented the feelings of those birders who expressed their concern either verbally to one or more of those 'local' birders or via this forum. To place the plans on the website and await a response from everyone is impractical. Had the partners not have erradicated the errant footpath then of course nothing would have been agreed on but seeing as they removed what was the cause of our concern I for one, acting on behalf of those I had dealt with verbally/email/private message was content to agree.

Excuse me....
Between 1990 and 2005 (inclusive) I carried out a BTO Waterways Bird Survey along the SSSI. This involved, in the breeding season, 10 mapping visits (ie very large maps on which all bird territories were mapped using symbols to denote activity eg singing, calling, display, nestbuilding etc etc) Each visit took up to 5 hours, all the sightings being correlated at the end of the season to determine the total numbers of territories. WBS was the riparian equivalent of CBC (=Common Bird Census) and both surveys pre-dated the Breeding Bird Survey and Waterways Breeding Bird Survey which I now do there (1996 to date). These definitive surveys are used to inform the government in the annual publication The State of the UK's Birds. They also are used to designate species on the Red and Amber lists.
I also spend a fair amount of time down there at other times in the breeding season, being able to go in the daytime when most of you are at work. I also have records back to the early 1980s for the site and was instrumental in getting the Abram Flashes designated as a SSSI and saved from being lost to tipping.
Before my involvement, Roy Rhodes, Dave Wilson and Charlie Owen did equally valuable work down there, which can be seen in the annual reports of the Leigh OS at that time.

Ian McKerchar wrote:

---

Rob Thorpe wrote:

---

That's funny, I've never actually seen any of these "local" birders at Lightshaw...

-- Edited by Rob Thorpe on Sunday 21st of February 2010 11:59:29 AM

---

To be pedantic Rob , the statement merely says 'local birders' and not necessarily local to Lighthshaw

Yet between the four of them alone they have over 170 years of experience at the site . Three of them (and I'm not one) know more about the site than any other living person.

-- Edited by Ian McKerchar on Sunday 21st of February 2010 12:37:35 PM

---

no one has greater birding knowledge of that area than charlie,dave,and judith.Charlie was birding that area 50 years ago,found many rarities there in the 1970's,and to be honest rob if you don't know them personally,you would probably pass them at leightshaw without even knowing they were birders,dave keeps his bins under his coat,and charlie often doasn't have bins,with him at all,and normally in his pocket.
They don't look like the strereotypical birders of the present day,but both are far better birders and naturalists than anyone i have ever met,but more than that they are conservationists,that work tirelessly in the background attending meetings etc and I can say that they are the best representatives that you would ever want if you wish to conserve an area,or have an area managed correctly for the benefit of wildlife.



-- Edited by JOHN TYMON on Sunday 21st of February 2010 09:30:07 PM

-- Edited by JOHN TYMON on Sunday 21st of February 2010 09:33:37 PM

Ian McKerchar wrote:

---

-- Edited by Rob Thorpe on Sunday 21st of February 2010 11:59:29 AM

---

Yet between the four of them alone they have over 170 years of experience at the site

---

.....and 150 of those are Charlie Owen's

As a former work colleague and generally an all round good mon, he won't mind me saying that (I hope, creep, creep)

At such a meeting it wouldn't be feasible to have too many attendees and those present will have been in a good position to represent the views already aired on this forum, along with their wealth of experience in similar issues elsewhere. Let's hope that the scheme can come to fruition and secure an important site.

And that's exactly why I find it strange that I haven't seen any of these birders at Lightshaw. I've only been birding there myself a few years, but can name 4 birders who I have bumped in to at Lightshaw on several occasions. But to my knowledge, non of the birders who are currently regularly visiting Lightshaw were consulted during this meeting and revision of the plans...

That's funny, I've never actually seen any of these "local" birders at Lightshaw...

-- Edited by Rob Thorpe on Sunday 21st of February 2010 11:59:29 AM

not sure where you get that from Andy, it clearly reads 'exciting' for me

As for anything else, it's only fair we should be optimistic about the new proposals. We (rightly) aired our serious concerns about the original plans and they (the partners) along with the RSPB and Natural England went away and reworked those plans to erradicate the path that gave cause for our concern.

The future? We have been given assurances to atleast be offered the opportunity to have some form of input into the future of the site, which is as it should be and could well be a big step forward for the county in general. Some might say I'm perhaps being naive but surely we should try to forge a way forward and build relationships with such organisations as those involved in the Lightshaw project? Without it I fear the county is doomed and 'tis better to have loved and lost than to... no, no that's the wrong quote

Just for the record, I was unable to go to this meeting as was laid low with this norro virus (D&V) bug that's going around and am only just feeling right now.
Let's hope that all turns out well...

My letter of complaint about the footpath has gone in the post this morning to Richard Fowler. Tried to paste the text of it in here but couldn't do that unfortunately. Apologies for coming to this subject a bit late - but hopefully not too late

I agree that the site could benefit from some management to enhance its designation as a Lowland Wet Grassland site, and that habitat's particular assemblage of breeding birds for which it was designated back in 1990 (I did a reassessment for English Nature as part of a contract, in 1995). However, to me, and I think everyone else, the question of the footpath is paramount. I am happy for forego the management if it means we won't have the footpath.
Makes you wonder what they can spend £947k on there. I believe Mr Brown our PM has a lot of debts to pay...this might just help.

Going back to exactly why we are (or perhaps should be) opposing part of this plan, I spoke to Dave Wilson today (fresh back from Central America). Dave has arguably more personal and intimate knowledge of Lightshaw than any other living birder and I certainly respect his opinion higher than that of anyone else. Not withstanding that Dave is wholeheartedly against the proposed footpath along the flash itself as we all are, he does agree that the site requires some management. In his eloquent and compelling fashion Dave recounted exactly why he disgrees with the footpath and gave me an insight into the area from so long ago I wasn't even atwinkle in my daddy's eye!I hope he won't mind me expressing very briefly some of those thoughts here.

For many, many years, it was understood and agreed by local birders and conservationalists that Lightshaw would be left alone, as one of the very few (and now unfortuantely perhaps only?) such sites in the county not to be disturbed by either parties and of course the public. One of the early reasons was due to the farmer at the time venomously chasing away anyone who came near (including my Dad and I during the very early 80's). Unlike many other county sites, birds disturbed from Lightshaw do not have the luxury of being able to settle at another part of the site as the the area really is so small. Once disturbed, birds simply fly off, perhaps to Pennington Flash to the east or the Abram and Wigan Flashes in the west but either way and perhaps more than any other site in the county, any disturbance at Lightshaw Hall Flash is significant and detrimental, particularly in the breeding season.



But, for me atleast (Ian not Dave!) and it would seem so many others, the whole crux of the matter remains the proposed footpath and it's potential to damage to the sensitive and private nature that has been maintained at Lightshaw for as long as anyone can remember. I personally don't see why the area around the flash has to be opened up to the public (they certainly wouldn't care less if it's wasn't) but we have the dilemma of leaving the site potentially to it's own devices and whatever that may bring, good or bad or opposing the path and having something done about it. I hope 'the partners' involved with the proposed plans are reading this thread (I have more than a suspicion that they do) and that something may be formally agreed or atleast formally discussed. Our opposition to this footpath is purely down to it's inevitable disturbance to the very last private and natural site in the county. Why can it not be left in this condition, as a testament to how it has always been since it was formed? Surely that in itself, when viewed from a more distant vantage point by the public looking at their colourful and information packed display 'overview' boards, will have more of an educational effect than the unecessary walking right through the area?

This morning received a very prompt written reply from Richard Fowler, Grants Officer for the Heritage Lottery fund. Have copied the body of the letter below for info purposes - although it probably doesn't add anything that hasn't already been mentioned on the forum.

"Dear Mr Myerscough

Re: Lightshaw Meadows

Thank you for your letter regarding the application submitted to the Heritage lottery Fund by Community Forests Northwest.

The aims of the application proposal are as follows:
Complete the purchase of 18 hectares of land, 13 of which are SSSI.
Conserve and protect the SSSI and return it to 'unfavourable - recovering' condition, with a long term goal of 'favourable' condition.
Promote learning about the natural and industrial heritage with key audiences.
Promote and provide sympathetic access to the heritage and its links with the surrounding area.

While Community Forests Northwest is the applicant, the project is to be delivered in partnership with Red Rose Forest and Lancashire Wildlife Trust.

The application is currently being assessed and will be presented for a decision to the HLF's North West Committee when it meets in March 2010. Please be assured that I shall bring the matters you have raised to the attention of Committee Members to ensure that they may take your concerns into account when making their decision over whether to award a grant. We shall be taking specialist conservation advice as part of the assessment and shall also be consulting Natural England.

Community Forests Northwest is in the process of consulting stakeholders about the proposals so I would suggest you also feed your views into this."


Bill.

The statement from the "partners" involved in the purchase contains a very interesting point:
"we would expect the area to become more suitable for the bird assemblages identified within the site citation as the habitat improves"
The scarce bird "assemblages"(what?) that are currently found at the site (when I say currently, I mean in recent breeding seasons, not in December ) mainly utilise the south shore of Lightshaw Flash. Within the narrow strip of land along this south shore, the "partners" plan to construct a footpath, a bund and a ditch. How can the habitat then improve??
The "partners" justify this destruction of habitat by saying that new habitat will be created in the western section of the site. How can they guarantee that this new habitat will be suitable for these species? The new habitat will be in close proximity to both the canal towpath (frequented by dogwalkers (including "spaniel man")), and the NEW PATH that has been mentioned already on this thread.
There could be a positive result to this new ownership of the area, but not if it includes increased public access! No matter how much the "partners" try to "sell it" to us, this area is special for the birds it attracts, and these birds are only there because the site is undisturbed. As soon as there is access to this site these birds will no longer "assemble" here.
As Judith has quite rightly pointed out in a previous post, there is an already existing path along the old mineral line which runs along the western edge of the proposed "Lightshaw Meadows". According to the plans, this path will be improved to allow vehicular access. Walking along the old mineral line, even in its current overgrown state, offers good views over the western section of the site, and even of the flash itself. This site does not need any new paths!
Habitat Management: YES (but not the same "mal-management" as seen at the Wigan Flashes (aka the Wigan Forest))
Public Access: NO!
And if funding cannot be got without increasing public access to the site, then I say it's in the Abram Flashes' interest that this particular funding does not go ahead...

This link to the Heritage Lottery Fund shows that Wigan is one of the HLF's priority areas for 2008 to 2013. This might make stopping any funding for this project more difficult...

"Unfortunately it is increasingly difficult to attract funding purely for nature conservation"

I find this very worrying.

I have never been able to understand why Paul Thomas, the NE officer (who is off long-term sick so I can't ask him) classified Unit 2 (the area including Lightshaw and Dover Basin) of the Abram Flashes as in unfavourable condition due to over grazing. I have never seen more than about 5 cattle in either Dover marsh or at Lightshaw; maybe he went down when there happened to be more on a rare occasion, but it is by no means a common occurrence. A few cattle keep the marsh open and stop willow succession and compacting - that's why the RSPB and many others manage marshes that way. The other reason given for unfavourable condition is the presence of Himalayan Balsam - but show me a site round here that hasn't got it, and it's not that bad, really. There's as much if not more at some parts of the Wigan Flashes which are SSSI'd. When I saw this assessment some time ago now, I puzzled over it and hopefully, when the guy comes back to work, I'll make an opportunity to talk to him about it.

As I suggested in my previous post, RRF don't have the remit to purchase sites just for nature conservation (see 5th para of their statement.) "Wider benefits" means public footpaths = dog walkers. Sorry, but there it is. Note - no mention of any concession in this footpath wrangle. Why can't they put it up the railway embankment where it is already (but needs enhancement) - no reply to that suggestion which everyone would be in agreement with.

They may not wish to have an adverse impact on the site but through ill-considered footpath creation, they will. The evidence will be there in territory assessments once they've completed them - to compare with the records 1990-2009. It was tedious at the time, but I'm glad I kept copies of all those huge BTO mapping sheets now!

As for the site being managed by the Lancs Wildlife Trust, I think there may be several opinions about that, from local birders' reactions when I told them.