OK Defra: offset this!

What do you ‘value’ about your local environment?

It’s the final day of our latest campaign, so we are urging everyone who loves woods and trees to think about what it is that you value about the habitats near you, and make sure your views shape proposals for a ‘biodiversity offsetting’ scheme, while you can!

btn-involved

Offsetting purports to replace a habitat lost to development. These images represent just some of the things I value about the habitats near to me (scroll over the image for a caption) – what about you?

Even if you don’t think there should be an offsetting scheme (you can say this in our campaign as well) please tell the Government exactly what would need to be considered if a habitat in your local environment was ever to be ‘offset’. We all know value is not just about finance – make sure the Government understand this too.

The consultation (and our campaign) closes at midnight.

About Kaye Brennan

Senior Campaigner (Policy & Advocacy) for the Woodland Trust and Administrator, 'Woodland Matters' blog
This entry was posted in Campaigning, Climate Change, Conservation, Consultation, Defra, England and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to OK Defra: offset this!

  1. Reblogged this on Women in Planning – London and commented:
    Offsetting new hot topic in biodiversity / environmental planning?

  2. Kaye Brennan says:

    Thank you to everyone who took part in this complex and detailed debate with us! Our submission has been finalised and includes your views and input, and submitted to Defra, and our campaign is now closed! More here and on our website soon. Frances, and Kaye

  3. June McCarthy says:

    “Of all man’s works of art, a cathedral is greatest. A vast and majestic tree is greater than that” Henry Ward Beecher.

    How would you offset the demolition of a cathedral, hundreds of years old, for house building? Its the same as for a tree hundreds of years old. You can’t offset the loss of such a tree for several lifetimes. For that is how long its replacement will take to grow, if allowed to by successive Planners!

    • Ash says:

      Well said June. A cathedral is about as close as we humans will ever get to creating something that will last. Although these days with the decline of Christianity we are unlikely to see any new cathedrals.

  4. Hapenny says:

    As I have said on many previous occasions on proposed additional building locally [already built several hundred houses on previously green area and horticultural sites] and for the CPRE if we as a nation keep permitting building, both residential and commercial, on ‘green’ land, woodland and farmland we will have nothing left for future generations to enjoy. Not just our children, grandchildren and all generations that follow. Our ‘green and pleasant land’ will disappear under concrete and ash-felt, with no land for ‘drainage’ flooding will be a regular occurrence and long relaxing walks in the countryside and historic woodlands in all seasons will be something people will only read about in books!

  5. Derek West says:

    Offsetting is a boon to developers and a disasaster for nature,we need a goverment that has
    nature at the heart of its planning policies,(some hopes of that).

  6. Ash says:

    Say NO to BO!

  7. June McCarthy says:

    Should not we conserve natural established and therefore ecologically rich environments, and not be content with their loss and replacemnt, ” offsetting” by ecologically “new” environments, which environments by virtue of their very newness will take years to compensate and offset the destruction of older more established environments.

    We are destroying untold numbers of insects and birds when we build on large swaithes of natural land, and destroy their habitats, Sapling and very young trees planted by developers can not sustain wildlife like mature trees and environments can.

    I think the government needs to be brave and stand up to halt large immigration levels from Europe as our housing capacity, our NHS, our schools , our road networks and our natural environment are being damaged and strained to breaking point!

    • Rwthless says:

      Government needs to get a grip of developers and force them to use brownfield sites. Force them to develop communities with facilities and not just luxury housing for sale to wealthy customers. Offsetting is just a bone for a hungry dog. Even without copious immigration we fell behind building targets for many years, but there are plenty of very bad housing properties that could be replaced or brought up to standard and made properly habitable without building huge numbers of new properties on greenfield sites. Don’t allow the word ‘site’ to be used of an ancient woodland by the way. It is the kiss of death. Always use the name of the wood wherever possible.

  8. Rwthless says:

    I agree, but offsetting does provide a habitat eventually. Not soon enough or near enough.

  9. Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
    Nature at its best and most beautiful. These are pictures to share, and to revel in being able to see.

  10. edithkl says:

    Well done Woodland Trust. A picture is worth a thousand words, and I say this as someone who is inclined to be very “wordy”. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

  11. Rwthless says:

    I suspect that offsetting schemes are a distraction from the real issue of destroying the natural environment to enrich developers and save architects from designing work that ‘fits in’ to the environment rather than making the statement about them.
    Given the opportunity, ‘Progress’ seems to involve removing bits of the planet to put our stamp on it. Even Green belt that was fought for in the past is now only negotiable, and keeping or extending a ‘green corridor’ right into a city centre is becoming a forlorn hope.
    The good quality housing that we need is being unzipped as soon as it is stitched in by developers shifting their planning applications.
    I would like to see the application for a revision of permission already given cancelling out the original application for the same place by the same applicant, and a new one standing or falling on its merits without the chance to fall back on the previous version. It would prevent a small low rise block for visiting relatives of patients at a nearby hospital, shifting to become a high rise block for troublesome council tenants to overlook residential housing.

  12. Peter Kyte says:

    Offsetting is totally illogical, nothing can replace an established environment as it represents a unique situation in a certain instance of time.

Sorry, comments are closed as we have moved to a new site: https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/blogs/woodland-trust/

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s