2013
Inquiry: Kendal's
Strawberry field lapwings
- Henry Adams
Location: Kendal Town Hall. Date I was there
to talk and be questioned on the Strawberry field and lapwings: Wednesday 19th June.
The
inquiry concerned a proposed housing development in the “Green
Triangle” at the SE edge of Kendal, which would destroy at least
a fifth of the
Strawberry field (which has
supported breeding lapwings for many years). I was acting as an
independent ecological consultant
‘witness’ to support
both Dennis Reed’s larger contribution as Chairman of TOG
- the Triangle Opposition Group,
Kendal, as well as my own independent assessment as a consultant -
though must admit an interest as a resident living in SE Kendal - and
thus having a strong concern for the well-being of living things that
reside here (species including Homo
sapiens).
However - by agreement with Dennis Reed my role in the inquiry was
confined to
the Lapwings of the Strawberry field and the wildlife and site features
on which they depend. (Most of the area covered by the development
proposal would be the green
field to the North-West of the Strawberry field - a significant
proportion of the green gap between Kendal and Oxenholme).
1 minute video clip
of Kendal's Strawberry
field lapwings
by Dave
Weatherley
My
PHOTOS of Kendal's Strawberry
field
My
stuff:
For the June 2013 inquiry:
The Strawberry field lapwings are
an example of wildlife and other
hard-to-price
free attributes of the
Rural-Urban Fringe (RUF) that can be under-valued in this often
intensely competed-over land-zone. Here I expand on this point and
discuss it on twitter with Alister Scott,
Spatial Planning
Professor at Birmingham City University
(he provides academic
help to sorting out conflicts over the
hotly-contested RUF - one of his pet subjects):
http://storify.com/henryadamsUK/the-value-of-wildlife-and-hard-to-price-attributes in the RUF.
My
viewpoint is that we should integrate the existing wildlife and
other hard-to-price attributes of the RUF into plans as assets to
those living in and passing through them not as impediments to be
ignored and destroyed. A biodiversity of wildlife should be kept within
and around the vicinity of residential areas as being a free and
zero-carbon contribution to our well-being.
This is not stopping
housing development as that can go instead on land of lower
wildlife/landscape value. It is not an "either/or" zero-sum game as
many councillors have falsely portrayed - for example at an open
meeting on green spaces which I attended, where I saw first-hand these
councillors using a deceitful "straw man" type of attack on local
people trying to protect their green spaces. The local residents
found their views being deceitfully mis-represented by the very
people supposed to represent them rather than developers, greedy
absentee land-owners and a central government who can only
see assets in terms of money (for "economic growth" - which means
profits to them).
My talk at the inquiry: pdf of
text with 'slides': INQUIRY-MyTalkSLIDES&TEXTreLapwingsStrawberryFieldKendal.pdf
- presented on Wednesday
19th June 2013.
My
May 2013 statement submitted to
the Planning Inspectorate (this was
submitted as part of TOG's
statement submission to Planning Inspectorate, by Dennis Reed, TOG
Chairman)
http://www.dragonfly1.plus.com/LapwingsStrawberryFieldKendal.pdf -
all parties had access to this document (and its original version)
prior to the inquiry. At the inquiry I was required to
voice what's in this submission document - without adding more
evidence as that would not give other parties sufficient time to
address.
The evening before the inquiry I was given a letter from the
developer's consultants envirotech
dated 30may13 which aimed to
criticize my submission. page1, page2, page3.
NB: though this letter was dated 30may13 it did not become available to
me and other parties until the last possible moment - on day 1 of
the inquiry on 18th June (and I didn't receive a copy unil the evening
before I had to give my talk on 19th June). I expect this timing
was deliberate: so that the Inspector could take away a copy
of it for perusal but in the hope that I would have too little time to
write a full response in time for the Inspector to take that away with
him (the Inspector won't consider statements after the inquiry
proceedings). Also in the hope that I would not have sufficient
time to pre-consider the numerous points raised in it before my time on
the dias, nor have adequate time to vocally respond to them all (I was
only given a brief time for both these). This meant that the
Inspector has not read my write-up as follows:
Questioning
to me at the inquiry by the
Inspector, Dennis Reed for the Triangle Opposition Group (TOG) and the
barrister
on behalf of the developer,
with some of my answers.
9jul13: My letter to envirotech presenting them an
ultimatum: retract or face the consequences of siding with the
developers against the lapwings.
11jul13 Email string (mostly-) to envirotech. Co-Director
Hannah Gardner writes: "We
acknowledge receipt of your email. We are taking the contents under
advisement." It
is strange to use such wording which has a legal association - with
ambiguous implication that they may be seeking legal advice as to the
contents of my letter, and also with much ambiguity as to their
intention. If they are in fact getting legal advice (rather than simply
giving consideration to my statements - which is a non-legal but
uncommon use of such a term) - why would their first reaction having
made a major error of judgement with their pro-developer letter
criticizing my concern for the lapwings, to dig deeper and up the
stakes for themselves?
Neither of the 2 Directors has spoken to me over the telephone: their
immediate response appears to be to incur legal expenses - if that's
what they mean. Makes you wonder what type of people they are to put
across such ambiguity. I'll let you be judge!
I'm eager to hear what Hannah Gardner means about "under advisement" -
because either way - it's win-win for the lapwings: if Ecosurv retract
their letter's position and support the lapwings - that's an obvious
win (and loss to the developers), whereas if they don't -
there's potential for good publicity for the lapwings (I enjoyed
the Inquiry experience - answering questions from the developer's
barrister provided bonus opportunities to put forward the lapwing and
Strawberry field case).
Bear in mind that envirotech's documents are pro-development of the
green gap and go against or try to over-ride my earlier
pro-wildlife pro-landscape pro-sustainability pro-health statements
which are in "the public domain" e.g. on SLDC website (re
planning). Here are some of them:
Back
in 2011:
10dec11
Letter from Henry Adams to SLDC Planning in response to LAND AT
OXENHOLME ROAD,
KENDAL,
including
the “Strawberry Field” – a lapwing
breeding site, re DEVELOPMENT: EXTENSION
TO TIME CONDITION ON PLANNING PERMISSION SL/2008/1220 (engineering ops
re Rugby
Club’s plans), REF. NUMBER:
SL/2011/0896
http://www.dragonfly1.plus.com/LetterHenryAdamsToSLDCreStrawberryFieldandLapwings2011.pdf
My
April
2011 submission to SLDC
Planning re land allocations (here as 2 pdfs):
Green Gap & Strawberry field:
The Kendal-Oxenholme Green Gap (R120, ON1, M2M, RN133M)
Green
Gap & Strawberry field (more photos): R120,
ON1, RN133M, M2M: Panorama from The Helm, showing the landscape
importance of the Kendal-Oxenholme Green Gap
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY PHOTOS My
PHOTOS of Kendal's Strawberry
field, Kendal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documents
by ther
people/organisations:
MAP: Developer's PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT
PLAN (jpeg scan) -
referred to at this June 2013
inquiry. NB:
orientation is very skewed from grid North to fit page shape.
Envirotech's criticism
of my submission to the Inspectorate - a letter dated 30may13
written on behalf of the developers: page1, page2, page3.
Envirotech's 'ECOLOGICAL
APPRAISAL Oxenholme Road, Kendal, October 2012' (pdf)
Gardner displays on page 1: that envirotech has a Gold
Environmental Award from Cumbria Business Evironment Network (BEN). Is
this a greenwash award? It certainly appears to be being used
as such now in 2013 (even though probably unintentionally?) as regards
this
case (here I refer to Andrew Gardner's pro-development letter
criticizing my points of concern for the lapwings and ignoring the
Precautionary Principle). More
appropriate here would be a George Osborne [Autumn Statement]
Award for efforts to
prevent
wildlife habitats getting in the way of economic growth (referring to a
Chancellors' Autumn Statement referring to planning and the
countryside).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other
stuff:
My
talk text (without the slides): INQUIRY-MyTalkTEXTreLapwingsStrawberryFieldKendal.pdf
My talk 'slides' (without the
spoken text): INQUIRY-MyTalkSLIDESreLapwingsStrawberryFieldKendal.pdf