Comment: Appropriate Assessment Habitats & Bio diversity etc.
Rough HTML file
Hawkstone Tenants and Residents Association
c/o 57 John Kennedy House, London, SE16 2QF
Comment made be Jerry Hewitt (Secretary) & Kathy Hennessy (Chair) for Hawkstone Tenants and Residents Association and on their own account as Rotherhithe residents (London Borough of Southwark).
Hawkstone T&RA is an unincorporated non political association open to all tenants, leaseholders and residents of Brydale House, Canute Gardens, Harbord House, Jarman House, John Kennedy House, Rotherhithe Old Road and Westfield House all located on the Hawkstone Estate, London SE16. Promoting common interests and providing a unified voice for 340 properties.
At a General Meeting of Hawkstone Tenants and Residents Association on 24th February 2010 the following motions were passed unanimously:
“J) That the Chair and Secretary write a representation comment on behalf of residents to Southwark Planning for The Core Strategy consultation by 4th March 2010. The new homes demanded by the Mayor of London [Boris] must be more equally distributed into each Southwark ward…”
“L) That the Secretary coordinate and explore opportunities for legal action, injunction and complaint in respect of…the Southwark Core Strategy, Southwark Park Sports Center, the redevelopment of Rotherhithe Primary School and Canada Water Area Action Plan.”
Kathy Hennessy, Jerry Hewitt and Hawkstone T&RA (and or any legal advisor appointed) wish to attend any future hearing or meeting set up by the inspector.
Without prejudice we make the following common view comment. The number of people we represent is determined by the our constitution , properties, and by the payment of money into TMFC by Southwark Council for each property on behalf of households and our members who reside in each dwelling.
We claim to represent over 1000 residents.
This comment is made under protest that information has been withheld by Southwark Council that is materially relevant to the ability to be able to make appropriate comment for the Core Strategy & CWAAP. Information has also been provided late into the consultation period. Southwark Council has produced such an amount of documentation and such a complex structure that the design and functions of the policy making process impact unfairly on residents, the public and particularly upon residents with literacy difficulties such as dyslexia that are covered by the Disability Equality Duty. Therefore, overall, we say that the process is unjust and unlawful.
(Adapted Image taken from file http://www.southwark.gov.uk/Uploads/FILE_45256.pdf)
CW AAP comment on document Appropriate Assessment (“AA”) (Pdf file created 30/11/2009, modified 01/03/2010)
http://www.southwark.gov.uk/Uploads/FILE_45642.pdf
The AA document states that:
“It is not the role of the Inspector to assess the compliance of the plan with the Habitats Directive.” p.2
Therefore we assume residents will be required to test compliance in a court of law or otherwise which creates additional uncertainly for the delivery of CW AAP projects. The Council has withheld information that is material to residents being able to make appropriate comment on The Core and CWAAP.
We are not professionals - just residents.
The AA document instructs that:
“The Inspector will consider the soundness of the Canada Water AAP using the Appropriate Assessment as part of the evidence base.”
The Inspector is therefore able to assess if the AA is itself “sound”. The AA provided by Southwark Council is not sound, valid/reliable evidence for the following reasons:
The AA states at 5.1 that:
“The council identified that there are no Natura 2000 sites in Southwark.”
And the July 2006 SSSI condition survey used as evidence is 4 years old.
The lack of Natura 2000/EU protected and habitats sites in Southwark is an outcome of the Council’s own failure to thoroughly resource and investigate to identify schedule & catalogue the species, fauna and other biodiversity present within land managed and control by the Council. The Council ascribes a “nil” monetary value to “green spaces” where Natura 2000/Habitats Directive appropriate species & fauna exist. See file:
http://www.southwark.gov.uk/Uploads/FILE_45256.pdf
On page 14 real site No.5, a green area likely to be Council owned, is awarded under EUV Assumptions a £ NIL – zero - value as "recreational land". This compares to an EUV of
£8,071,500 had the open green space had industrial units on it. Far from having systems to identify and "value" open green spaced and habitats Southwark's dominant systems are structured and calibrated to destroy them. Community Halls also have a zero monetary rating. We wonder how a church, mosque or synagogue would be valued?
Southwark is declaring that within 1,000's of publicly-owned hectares under its control and stewardship that there is no Natura 2000/Habitats Directive appropriate habitat, species or other flora & fauna in place to protect and that other private owned land within the Borough boundaries provides no biodiversity for EU protection either. The whole Borough is an EU protection free dessert and therefore the AA concludes no impact. This finding is entirely fanciful!
There is no monetary incentive for the Council to invest in projects to identify Natura 2000/Habitats Directive appropriate habitat, species or other flora & fauna and habitat and every financial incentive not to do so.
One of the most serious threats to Natura 2000/Habitats Directive appropriate habitats is Southwark Council's current approach to development and the rule like models it uses to value green open space. Far too many assumptions and settings made to setup the models and systems are wrongly made and not subject to adequate scrutiny.
The Final Version of the Southwark Biodiversity Action Plan (2007) states:
“Specific action plans have been developed to protect bats, Stag Beetles and the Corky-Fruited Water Dropwort. Additional action plans for House Sparrows, Song Thrushes and Great Crested Newts will be introduced in 2007 and 2008. Work for Wildlife aims to conserve and enhance designated species through a range of strategic activities that include raising public awareness through events and information campaigns; working with key partners and stakeholders; developing a bat tunnel in Sydenham Hill Wood; introducing Stag Beetle breeding buckets in parks, housing sites and schools, and trans-locating rare flowers to new locations.”
http://www.southwark.gov.uk/Uploads/FILE_28648.pdf (31/05/2007)
The AA informs of three conservation sites of EC importance at least partially within 10km of Southwark: Identified conservation sites of EC importance –
Wimbledon Common (SAC)
Richmond Park (SAC)
Lee Valley (SPA)
We read that the purpose of these EC protected sites include:
“To maintain in favourable condition the habitats for the population of: Stag beetle, for which this is one of only 4 known outstanding localities in the UK.” (our emphasis)
Southwark School children and residents are regularly informed about stag beetles in Southwark. We appreciate that there are many different kinds of stag beetle and some will be rare and some not. However, simply because the Council has not “looked” are we to declare that there is none? And that it is probable that there are none in the whole of Southwark?
On 13/08/2009 Southwark reported the “return” of Leisler’s bat Nyctalus leisleri in Southwark Park which is a site of nature conservation place with the AAP care. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/Public/NewsArticle.aspx?articleId=38284 (Reproduced below).
Following this news the Council decided to move an established wildlife/flower meadow and reduce the overall size of green area in the park, double the intensity of floodlights around a running track (200 to 400 brightness), erect more high fencing, and demolish and rebuild a 24 approx. year old building.
The AA states:
“6.1 The Canada Water Area Action Plan Publications/submission version has been analysed to assess whether the policies it sets out would be likely to result in significant adverse impacts on European sites. The draft Natural England guidance defines 'likely' as meaning 'probably, not merely a fanciful possibility'.”
Given the lack of resources Southwark spends towards its responsibility as a major landlord in London to protect biodiversity we find it entirely likely and probable that CWAAP & Core Strategy policies will result in significant adverse impacts on sites also other flora and fauna that are appropriate for application to be Natura 2000/Habitats Directive protected sites.
We say it is actually evidenced fact that CWAAP, Core and current planning policies as applied by the Planning Committee are significantly impacting on sites, flora and fauna that are protected by EU law and that failure by the public authority to act reasonably and responsibly in regards to its responsibilities, obligations and duties towards habitats within the Borough deprives sites, flora and fauna accreditation of the status they enjoy by way of their enduring existence within particular places.
In its functions as developer, planning authority, custodian of biodiversity and Town Centre Planning Southwark is bathed in conflicts of interest and interference by one set of interests upon another. By outcome in the North of the Borough the “dash for cash” imperative overrules.
We ask that the Inspector knock some sense into Southwark Council by finding the evidence provided to be woefully inadequate, selective and incomplete. We ask the inspected to find the outcome “unsound” and to make direction where the Inspector can.
There are many more residents who know a lot more about green nature issues than we do. However, we are one of the largest democratically run groups in Rotherhithe and we ask that the Inspector take our evidence, claims and views into account.
Jerry Hewitt & Kathy Hennessy
Secretary & Chair
For themselves and for and on behalf of Hawkstone Tenants & Residents Association as authorised by General Meeting of the Association.
(Hawkstone T&RA is funded by Southwark Council (TMFC) and therefore subject to oversight by Southwark Council).
Statement: Error checking: This paper and comment has been produced under imposed time limits and information constraints determined by Southwark Council. The author works with assistive technology as directed by Dr.David McLoughlin Ph.D,AFBPsS,C.Psychol, Chartered Psychologist, and with the provisions and statutory requirements of The Disability Discrimination Act. Southwark Council is required to screen its policies where functions are deployed toward disabled peopled. The document has not been proofed read or check for spelling and grammar errors. The author considers the working practices of Southwark Council Planning Consultations not to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act.
http://www.southwark.gov.uk/Public/NewsArticle.aspx?articleId=38284
"Southwark's wildlife enriched by the discovery of rare Hairy Armed Bat in the borough
Published on: 13/08/2009
Ref: 5965
Animal lovers in Southwark are celebrating after the news that a rare bat species has been recorded in the borough. A bat survey commissioned by the Café Gallery earlier this year in Southwark Park found that the park and its environs provide roost opportunities for Leisler’s bat, formerly known as the Hairy Armed Bat. The discovery of this particular species is an indicator of a healthy environment in Southwark and takes the number of bat species recorded in the borough to five.
Jonathan Best, Ecology Officer at Southwark Council, said:
"We are very pleased to have a new bat species recorded here in Southwark. We have focused on bats as part of the Southwark Biodiversity Action Plan and this shows how effective our work has been on encouraging this mammal into our borough".
Leisler’s bat is the third most common bat in England and is naturally a forest bat, but will roost in buildings, both old and new. In the winter this bat roosts in tree holes.
Alison Fure, an independent bat specialist, said:
“Leisler’s bat has not been recorded in the London Borough of Southwark before and is described as rare nationally. Careful management of trees and vegetation along the park boundaries and nearby open spaces is essential, not only to ensure that the multiple roost sites favoured by Leislers’ bats are protected but to prevent excessive light pollution.”
Leisler's bat is a fast-flying bat, often seen feeding on the insects that gather around street lamps. Like all bats, Leisler's bat is vulnerable to a number of threats, including habitat change and loss, affecting the availability of insect prey.
Note to Editors:
- Other bats recorded in Southwark are:
Two species of pipistrelle, Pipistrellus pipistrellus and Pipistrellus pygmaeus,
Noctule, Nyctalus noctuli,
Daubenton’s bat, Myotis daubentoni,
Brown long eared bat Plecotus auritus
- In Britain, bats benefit from a very comprehensive level of legal protection. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act it is illegal to intentionally kill, injure, take or sell a bat, posses a live bat or part of a bat, to intentionally or recklessly damage, obstruct or destroy access to bat roosts. Under the Conservation Regulations, it is an offence to damage or destroy breeding sites or resting places. Fines of up to £5,000 for every bat affected, and up to six months imprisonment are in place for these offences. An agreement on the Conservation of Bats in Europe (EUROBATS) under the auspices of the Bonn Convention, also known as the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) is also in place.
Further contact details:
Communications Unit
Southwark Council
PO BOX 64529
London
SE1P 5LX "