Costing London’s Growth event – how do we achieve sustainability and what would it look like?

Posted on 13/09/2014 by Chris Rose

This October 7th event is timely given the recent publication of Bexley Council’s ‘Strategy for growth – our emerging vision’, and has been organised by the Centre for a Steady State Economy, to look at how London can assume full responsibility for its ‘ecological footprint’ and take appropriate action, and how the link can be broken between prosperity and the predominant view that this can only be assured by continued over-consumption of resources.

http://steadystate.org/costing-londons-growth/

As well as comprehensive audits of environmental performance, questions to be addressed include: What does environmental restructuring mean for business and public planning? Are existing tools sufficient to address resource depletion or are structural and institutional changes required? What would sustainable living in London be like for residents? Should London replace ‘growth’ with ‘quality of life’ as a core aim? Ultimately, what needs to be done to ensure that the capital’s future is both sustainable and abundant?

The meeting takes place from 17.45-20.45 at Limehouse Town Hall, 646 Commercial Road, LONDON E14 7HA (Zone 2)

By underground: Canary Wharf Station on the Jubilee Line (10 minutes’ walk)
By DLR: From Bank St. or Tower Gateway to Limehouse DLR Station (5 minutes’ walk)
By bus: Routes 15; 115; 135; D3 and night routes N15; N550 and N551 serve Limehouse Station

It is free but to make sure there are enough places left e-mail d.kilroy@democraticplanet.org

Speakers include:

  • JAMIE BULL, Principal Consultant, oCo Carbon
  • KATHERINE TREBECK Global Research Policy Advisor, Oxfam GB
  • DAVID FELL, Economist, Brook Lyndhurst and London Remade
  • IAN CHRISTIE, Research Fellow, Sustainable Lifestyles Research Group, Univ. of Surrey
  • ROGER MARTIN, Chair, Population Matters

The underlying premise is that the built in drive for continual economic growth has social and environmental costs and has passed the point where costs outweigh benefits. A solution is to live within the limits of what nature can provide and process; from that perspective must come re-evaluation and economic transformation. To ensure ecological stability–on which social justice also depends–means making sure all resource use is kept in equilibrium with nature’s regeneration and waste assimilation capacities. 

______________

 

 

Posted in Sustainability | Leave a comment

Kent Wildlife Conference – 18th October

Posted on 13/09/2014 by Chris Rose

Kent Field Club (the Kent equivalent of the London Natural History Society) is holding it’s annual conference at the University of Kent’s Canterbury Campus, on October 18th. As usual there will be a number of talks of interest to students of wildlife matters in Bexley. 

Of course we share a long border with Kent (that wildlife takes no notice of), and from the point of view of wildlife recording, Bexley falls within the Vice-county of West Kent – so that there is a certain degree of overlap in the ground naturalists on each side of the border are interested in.

Booking form here:

http://www.kentfieldclub.org.uk/images/stories/Kent%20Wildlife%20Conference%202014.pdf

The cost is £20 per person.

Programme

  • 9.50 Welcome and introduction. John Badmin, Kent Field Club.
  • 10.00 Alien pests and diseases, and biosecurity measures. Andrew Gaunt, The Food and Environment Research Agency.
  • 10.25 Change in abundance of large brown seaweeds in the British Isles: is this happening in Kent? Prof. Juliet Brodie, Dr Chris Yesson, Natural History Museum
  • 10.50 The Kent Breeding Bird Atlas 2008-11 – changes in Kent’s avifauna.Stephen Wood, Kent Ornithological Society.
  • 11:15 – 11:35 Coffee and poster session
  • 11.35 The Robert Pocock Herbarium Project. Pauline Heathcote, North West Kent Local Group of Kent Wildlife Trust
  • 12.00 Kent plants today. Geoffrey Kitchener, Kent Botanical Recording Group.
  • 12.25 Spider behaviour. Greg Hitchcock, British Arachnological Society.
  • 12:50 – 2.00 Lunch and poster session
  • 2.00 The Kent Heritage Tree Project: involving the community in finding Heritage Trees. Jadie Baker, The Conservation Volunteers.
  • 2.25 The national importance of the Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI for nightingales. Phil Williams, Natural England.
  • 2.50 Crassula helmsii in Kent: do the effects on biodiversity justify control?Tim Smith, Canterbury Christ Church University.
  • 3.15 The use of pheromones as a sampling tool for the ecological study of burnet moths. Dr Joe Burman, Canterbury Christ Church University.
  • 3.40 Discussion. This session will conclude the conference and also provide an opportunity for people to flag up new projects and record requests before the conference close.
  • 4.00 Close. Refreshments will be available in the foyer after the close of conference for those who wish to have some time to chat and have a catch up

_________________________________

 

 

Posted in Conference, Kent | Leave a comment

938 Seals in the Thames

Posted on 11/09/2014 by jonathanrooks1@outlook.com

The Zoological Society of London’s annual seal count has found 489 Harbour (Common) Seals and 449 Grey Seals in the Thames Estuary.

A survey is done every August to monitor seal populations. A short film on this year’s survey is given below.

http://www.zsl.org//conservation/news/seal-numbers-increasing-in-the-thames?utm_medium=email&utm_source=ZSL+-+London+Zoo&utm_campaign=4656505_Conservation+Focus+September+2014&utm_content=SEALS&dm_i=7U7,2RSZD,1GY4UR,A35O0,1

Sightings of marine mammals can be logged at: http://sites.zsl.org/inthethames/#Public sightings

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Support required! Critical test case for protection of key wildlife sites from ‘development’.

Posted on 11/09/2014 by Chris Rose

Last Thursday evening Medway Council’s Planning Committee voted unanimously to approve the notorious Lodge Hill development on a SSSI, despite having received over 400 objections from local residents, conservation groups and the Government’s own environmental advisors, Natural England. Please ask Eric Pickles to call this decision in for public inquiry and a national decision, as it has major implications for wildlife site protection EVERYWHERE .

If this development goes ahead, not only do we lose one of the best homes – and only protected site – in the country for nightingales (which have declined by 90% in the last 40 years), but it undermines the Government’s own tests to prevent damaging development on every other nationally protected area around the country, and will give the likes of Bexley Council the idea that it is OK to trash locally important sites that enjoy even less robust protection than Lodge Hill is supposed to.

To send your own letter to Mr. Pickles, click here:

http://e-activist.com/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=13&ea.campaign.id=29359&ea.tracking.id=email

You will be given the chance to customise your letter. We suggest you point out that you are a frequent user of, or volunteer at, a local wildlife site or three, and are hugely concerned that if this development is allowed to go ahead, your own site(s) will become more vulnerable.

Last March Lodge Hill was designated as a protected area for the nightingales, its ancient woodland and rare grassland. Local people, the RSPB, Kent Wildlife Trust, Buglife, CPRE Protect Kent and a host of other organisations have fought to protect it from a damaging 5,000 house development. The Lodge Hill development will set a precedent for the whole of England, and will be one of the biggest destructions of our national protected sites for over 33 years. Eric Pickles, the Minister with overall responsibility for housing decisions, can ‘call in’ the application and make the decision himself, following a public inquiry. But he’ll only do so if he’s convinced that this development has a national impact and is nationally controversial. Please help convince him that this is the case.

(With thanks to the RSPB for much of the above text)

Erith Quarry, a Grade 1 Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, is a woodland edge/ scrub site that could potentially support Nightingales - but not if Bexley Council agrees to the plans to build over most of it. If Lodge Hill can't be protected, what chance sites like this?

Erith Quarry, a Grade 1 Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, is a woodland edge/ scrub site that could potentially support Nightingales – but not if Bexley Council agrees to the plans to build over most of it. If Lodge Hill can’t be protected, what chance sites like this?

Posted in Bird watching, Planning | 2 Comments

BNEF viewpoints on budget and bridges

Posted on 10/09/2014 by Chris Rose

Bexley Natural Environment Forum has the following concerns and views on these matters. Chair Ray Gray said ‘We would urge other groups and individuals to make submissions on these issues, as they have major implications for the long-term quality of our local environment.’

Bexley Council budget consultation. Deadline 14/9/2014. 

http://www.bexley.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=17905

TfL east London river crossings consultation. Deadline 18/9/2014

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/river-crossings

 

BUDGET

1)  The large cuts proposed for parks and open spaces threaten to reduce the value of precisely those features of the Borough that many people treasure. They are great resources, free at the point of use for everyone, which support the health and well-being of residents, as well as providing homes for wildlife and other ‘ecosystem services’ that money cannot replace.

2)  Cuts to litter removal may lead to a spiral of decline, leading to anti social behaviour

3)  The effects of point 2 would discourage people from visiting the sites

4)  Overall impact of 2 & 3 – would this make sites appear  redundant and increase the risk of sell-off/’development’?

5)  Cuts to open space management – we already receive a bad service in terms of ability to apply the kind of flexible and nuanced vegetation cutting required to protect and enhance wildlife – and even spring flowering shrubs in parks get hacked to the ground at the wrong times so there are no blooms for the public to enjoy; what will lowering the budget further lead to?

6)  Can volunteers be expected to wholly pick up any slack?

7)  What happens to sites where there is no voluntary input?

8)  The Council has in any case reduced the opportunities for  Council officers to interface with volunteer groups by stopping  out of hours meetings.

9)  A lack of direction/co-ordination  from the Council could lead to a reduction in volunteer effectiveness. Many of the relevant sites are Council-owned and volunteers need permissions to do much of their work.

10) What is the future of the remaining rangers?

11) We see following the lead of other Councils in the UK in dimming or cutting street lighting in the middle of the night in low traffic/non-safety critical areas as a way of saving significant amounts of money as well as benefitting the environment.

12) Money can also be saved in leaving more areas of grass etc. uncut, which would benefit wildlife if done in a strategic way, through boosting the supply of seeds and insects for species higher up the food chain like Bats and Sparrows, which are in decline.

BRIDGES

BNEF is opposed to both of the proposed road bridges into Bexley as these would inevitably increase traffic and pollution and reduce air quality, which are steps in wholly the wrong direction. They would increase the pressure for road-widening through Lesnes Abbey woods – a Metropolitan Site of Importance for Nature Conservation – whatever promises were made at the outset that this would not happen, and lead to congestion problems elsewhere in the Borough as vehicles headed south towards the A2.  We would not support the idea of a public-transport-only bridge as we believe that once built all kinds of traffic would eventually be allowed.

We support the renewal of the Woolwich ferry, but reserve our position on a Beckton – Gallions reach ferry until later stages of the debate because this also has new traffic implications, and would require road infrastructure across open land that again is part of what should be a restored Thames-side marshes area.

Posted in Bexley Council, BNEF, Planning, Sustainability | Leave a comment

Galling afternoon adds new species to Cray and TRW lists

Posted on 10/09/2014 by Chris Rose

The Alder Tongue Gall, which I found on the cones of an Alder along By-way 105 on the lower Cray yesterday (September 9th) may be a new Bexley record. The fact that ‘Britain’s Plant Galls, a photographic guide’ by Michael Chinery (WildGuides, 2011) says it is spreading, but still appears to be absent from the south east, and that the NBN gateway map (albeit undated) has only 2 records for Kent and none for London, suggests it could even be a new record for the capital, but I will have to make inquiries about that.

The gall looks like it says on the tin, a tongue-shaped outgrowth from the cones, caused by the fungus Taphrina alni. Fungal spores being readily shifted around the country on the wind it could, of course, have gained a foothold in our part of the world in the few years since the book was published and been noted elsewhere, but it doesn’t appear in GiGL’s 2013 biodiversity data for Bexley. I will certainly be looking closely at Alders in other locations such as the Shuttle and Danson Park from now on.

These Alder Tongue Galls from the Cray, show that the fungus Taphrina alni has spread into south-east England from the west.

These Alder Tongue Galls from the Cray, show that the fungus Taphrina alni has spread into south-east England from the west. (Photo: Chris Rose)

Armed with all this newly discovered  information about galls, I set out to look for them at the Thames Road Wetland site I manage as well, confident that I could thereby increase the known species count. Indeed five different galls, caused by five different species were found:

  • Rust on Common Mallow, caused by the fungus Puccinia malvacearum (the same species that attacks Hollyhocks)
  • The leaf rib gall of Ash caused by the gall midge Dasineura fraxini 
  • The shoot tip gall of Hawthorn caused by the gall midge Dasineura crataegi
  • The Sycamore leaf gall caused by the gall mite Aceria cephaloneus
  • The Germander Speedwell shoot tip/leaf gall caused by the gall midge Jaapiella veronicae

Despite the large amount of Ground Ivy at the east end of the site, none of the galls found on this species could be found, nor those that infect Bird’s-foot Trefoil or Yarrow, though a thorough search was not made of these latter species.

More stem galls of Creeping Thistle, previously recorded from the site, were found. These shelter the larvae of the picture-winged fly Urophora cardui.

Five stem galls of Creeping Thistle, produced by a fly, are seen by the River Wansunt at Thames Road Wetland. (Photo: Chris Rose)

Five stem galls of Creeping Thistle, produced by a fly, are seen by the River Wansunt at Thames Road Wetland. (Photo: Chris Rose)

Because galls are quite distinctive and largely host-species specific, getting into galls looks a good and relatively easy way to increase the species count at your local wildlife site, as well as giving an insight into yet another facet of inter-species interactions.

[Chris Rose]

Posted in Galls, Plants in Bexley, River Cray, Thames Road Wetland | Leave a comment

August records from Danson Park

Posted on 04/09/2014 by jonathanrooks1@outlook.com

Augusts’s records of wildlife sightings in Danson Park from John Turner. We are always pleased to receive records of observations. Email to JonathanRooks@virginmedia.com.

We keep copies of reports in a cloud folder at https://app.box.com/s/b9fbraryiqo4h4wblbf6

Danson Park August 2014 01/08/2014 07/08/2014 18/08/2014 23/08/2014
a.m. a.m. a.m. a.m.
Great-crested Grebe 2+3juv 2+3juv 1+2juv 2+2juv
Little Grebe 1 2+1juv 2+2juv 2+4juv
Cormorant 1 2 2
Heron 2 1 4 4
Little Egret 1 1 1
Mute Swan 2+3juv 2+3juv 2+3juv 2+3juv
Canada Geese 57 48 11 39
 Grey Lag Goose 2 1
Egyptian Goose 2 3 4 2
Mallard 97+5juv 64+7juv 95+11juv 76
Tufted Duck
Sparrow Hawk
Moorhen 12+2juv 14+2juv 13+2juv 10+2juv
Coot 65+1juv 66+3juv 62+1juv 66+4juv
Common Sandpiper
Black-headed Gull 54 28 39 38
Common Gull
Lesser Black Backed Gull
Herring Gull 2 1
Wood Pigeon 18 17 47 29
Stock Dove 3 4 5 4
Collared Dove
Ring-necked Parakeet 2 2 1 2
Kingfisher
Green Woodpecker 1 1 2 1
Greater-spotted Woodpecker 1 1
Nuthatch
Pied Wagtail
Grey Wagtail 1 1
Wren 4 3 1
Dunnock 1 1
Robin 8 6 8 6
Blackbird 3 2 2 1
Mistle Thrush
Song Thrush 1
Blue Tit 2 2 4
Great Tit 2 6 1
Coal Tit
Long-tailed Tit 4 6 4
Starling 35 39 21 80+
Jay 1
Magpie 8 6 9 4
Crow 94 36 47 52
House Sparrow
Chaffinch 1 1 1
Greenfinch 1 5 5
Goldfinch 3
Grey Squirrel 1 13 5 2
Brown Rat 2 1
Terrapin 1
Speckled Wood 7 14 6 2
Peacock
Small White
Large White 4 6 2 2
Orange Tip
Tortoiseshell
Green -veined white
Meadow Brown 13 6 1
Large Skipper
Small Skipper
Comma
Ringlet
Red Admiral
Gatekeeper 10 11
Common blue
Tiger Moth 1
Common blue damsel fly Lots 4 4
Blue tailed damsel fly 10 4 1
Red eyed damsel fly
Azure winged damsel fly
Large red damselfly 3
Dragonflies
Emperor 3 4 2
Broad bodied chaser 1 2
Common hawker 2
Common darter 3
Posted in Bird watching, Dragonflies and Damselflies | 1 Comment

Norman Road planning decision.

Posted on 03/09/2014 by jonathanrooks1@outlook.com

Recently received the letter from the Council confirming the decision to allow the development at the former site in Norman Road, Belvedere.

A number of us made objections to the planning application (see previous posts) and were disapointed that the Council did not require the developer to instal a green roof which would have been in accord with its own policies.

However, conditions have been imposed regarding development close to the watercourses and for the protection of water voles. We will need to keep an eye on these actions.

 

 Among the conditions…

9         No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision and management of a 5 metre wide buffer zone alongside the watercourses surrounding the site has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and any subsequent amendments shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The buffer zone scheme shall be free from built development including lighting and formal landscaping. The schemes shall include:           

– plans showing the extent and layout of the buffer zone.     

– details of any proposed planting scheme comprising native species, if required (where the watercourse has an existing native plant vegetated buffer zone additional planting may not be required).    

– details demonstrating how the buffer zone will be protected during development and managed/maintained over the longer term including adequate financial provision and named body responsible for management plus production of detailed management plan.          

– details of any proposed footpaths, fencing, lighting etc.     

Reason: Development that encroaches on watercourses has a potentially severe impact on their ecological value. Land alongside watercourses is particularly valuable for wildlife and it is essential this is protected.

 

10        No development shall take place until a plan detailing the protection and mitigation of damage to populations of water vole, a protected species under The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended, and its associated habitat during construction works and once the development is complete. Any change to operational, including management, responsibilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The water vole protection plan shall be carried out in accordance with a timetable for implementation as approved.

 

The scheme shall include the following elements:    

– The timing of the works within 5m of the ditches    

– The measures to be used during the development to minimise the impact of the works on the water vole population       

– The ecological enhancements as mitigation for any loss of water vole habitat resulting from the development  

– A map or plan showing habitat areas to be specifically protected during the works.         

– Tool box talks about the protection of water voles to all staff on site.        

– Any necessary pollution protection methods          

– Information on the persons/bodies responsible for particular activities associated with the water vole protection plan that demonstrate they are qualified for the activity they are undertaking.   

The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved protection plan.   

Reason: This condition is necessary to protect water vole and its habitat within and adjacent to the development site. Without it, avoidable damage could be caused to the nature conservation value of the site.

 The full documentation can be seen at http://pa.bexley.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=MELRQWBEDR000

Posted in Bexley Council, Planning | Leave a comment

Boris Island airport rejection

Posted on 03/09/2014 by jonathanrooks1@outlook.com

Local birdwatchers and RSPB members are delighted at the rejection of the ‘Boris Island’ Airport proposals by the Airports Commission.

Welcoming the rejection of the Thames Estuary Airport at Cliffe, the RSPB have said.

“Common sense has prevailed as the Airports Commission rules out an airport in the Thames Estuary.

That’s the message from the RSPB following the publication of the Airports Commission report into the feasibility of building an airport in the Thames Estuary today.

While communities along the Thames Estuary will be breathing a sigh of relief that proposals to build on this precious wildlife hotspot have been ruled out, the battle to curb increases in carbon emissions will continue.

Mike Clarke is the RSPB’s Chief Executive. Commenting on today’s announcement he said: “We have always said that the Thames Estuary is a disastrous place to put an airport. It supports many thousands of wintering birds and other wildlife.

“I sincerely hope that today’s announcement draws a line under any more similar proposals. The communities along the Estuary have been fighting plans for airports here for many years and none of them have taken into account the vital importance this area holds for many threatened species.”

Climate change

The RSPB says climate change remains the greatest long term threat to wildlife. The Society believes there should be no further expansion of aviation capacity in this country until the Government can demonstrate how they can be built and operated without busting our legally binding climate targets.

Emissions from aircraft are one of the fastest increasing sources of greenhouse gases. The impacts of climate change on wildlife in the UK and abroad are already being felt with seabirds struggling to find food as sea temperatures increase. Mike Clarke added: “Evidence shows that climate change could lead to up to a third of land-based species committed to extinction by 2050.”

                                                       ***

Boris Johnson

There is still the issue of airport expansion to face, the new airport at Lydd on the doorstep of Dungeness Bird Reserve and the possibility that Boris Johnson will try to force his ‘Boris Island’ plans through assuming he returns to parliament next year.

However, for the time being, we can just be pleased that for once the environmental issues caused by a major infrastructure project seem to have been considered.

 

Mayor of London, Boris Johnson interviewed about the decision.

 

Posted in Planning, RSPB, Sustainability | Leave a comment

How to respond to Bexley Council’s Budget proposals.

Posted on 03/09/2014 by jonathanrooks1@outlook.com

Bexley Council are running a consultation until Sunday 14th September on residents’ views of their further budget cuts.

This gives us one more week to make our views known on potential impacts on parks, open spaces and wildlife … and of course on other issues too.

The Council’s premise is that even more cuts have to be made and that the Council Tax cannot go up by more than two percent. The 2% limit is self imposed, it is not mandatory. Unfortunately, they don’t give those of us who are prepared to pay more Council Tax for the opportunity to have protected services the opportunity to say so.

 The Civic Offices

The Council have this time provided an online opportunity to tinker with the budgets as a way of indicating preferences over cuts and alternative ways of increasing council income. This is quite impressive and they are to be applauded for doing so. The cynics among us might suggest it is a response to the scorn heaped on them after they claimed huge support for the last round of budget cuts on the basis of a very low level of response.

On the assumption that they will take notice of the input or the fact that if they don’t then it will be obvious they are ignoring the community – we would urge you to complete the survey.

 You will be astonished by the size of some of the budgets. doing the survey will take 5-8 minutes of your time unless, like me, you found it an interesting exercise and get a bit carried away!

Suggestions for areas to make adjustments.

Leisure and Cultural Services.

Recreation, culture and local heritage.

“This budget covers the cost of indoor and outdoor leisure services, including bexley’s three leisure centres, plus parks, open spaces and allotments, archives, heritage, community centres and sports development”.

Unfortunately, this budget is not broken down to its constituent elements, but I favoured an increase in the hope that it would mean more money for the parks and open spaces.

Caring for the environment and keeping people safe.

Waste and Recycling

This is the bins and recycling centres. I increased the budget here to encourage recycling and a reduction in incineration of valuable waste resources.

waste collection

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting and Controlling Development.

Our interest is more in the controlling side, the Council doesn’t seem to need any more help in paving over the Borough’s open spaces! Perhaps the main one to look at is

Environmental initiatives

“Funds are provided for the protection or improvement of the natural environment”.

How much is this budget you ask? £39,000! I bunged it up to the maximum the site would let me – an additional £11,000.

Keeping Bexley Moving.

Keeping Bexley Moving

Your chance to reduce the budget for ‘maintaining the right transport infrastructure’ i.e. building more roads.

Lights at half past ten at night

Unnecessary street lighting impacting on a park.

Street Lighting

A chance to reduce the budget which should lead to better consideration of the amount of lighting the Council supports. Perhaps they might then reduce the amount of unneccesary lighting reducing energy wastage, light pollution and the ill health benefits that come from street lighting disprupting sleep patterns.

 

We would urge you to make your contribution to the discussion. The likelihood is that few people will, so our views will potentially have some influence.

Jonathan Rooks

The Council give a guide to the process at:

http://youtu.be/n6EKud5Wk5M

The survey is at: http://youchoose.esd.org.uk/bexley

 

Posted in Bexley Council, Consultations, Planning | Leave a comment