Jump to content

Ancient woods at Hopwas under threat to turn into a Quarry


Woodstock

Featured Posts

Hopwas wood was mentioned in the Doomsday book so is well over 1000 years old. The things you can't see are more important than the trees in these ancient ecosystems. The soil ecology, the fungi and ground flora the microhabitats of insects and the birds. You can chop the trees down and they will regrow but you can't replace the soil once it is disturbed. This is why offsetting is such a total waste of time.

This^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The local rag isn't referring to a planning application, but to the draft minerals local plan. The County Council planning portal shows only an invalid application for a variation to planning conditions applicable to a permission for a topographical survey.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if the BBC and the local press have got the wrong end of the stick: it wouldn't be the first time.

 

I wasn't criticising the sentiments in your OP, just the methods suggested, combined with a desire for a bit more information before allowing my knee to jerk. Which application are you objecting to?


Hopwas wood was mentioned in the Doomsday book so is well over 1000 years old. The things you can't see are more important than the trees in these ancient ecosystems. The soil ecology, the fungi and ground flora the microhabitats of insects and the birds. You can chop the trees down and they will regrow but you can't replace the soil once it is disturbed. This is why offsetting is such a total waste of time.

 

 

This^

 

Yes, I get all that, but where is the planning application, or the Minerals Local Plan that would make a valid application possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The local rag isn't referring to a planning application, but to the draft minerals local plan. The County Council planning portal shows only an invalid application for a variation to planning conditions applicable to a permission for a topographical survey.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if the BBC and the local press have got the wrong end of the stick: it wouldn't be the first time.

 

I wasn't criticising the sentiments in your OP, just the methods suggested, combined with a desire for a bit more information before allowing my knee to jerk. Which application are you objecting to?

 

 

 

 

Yes, I get all that, but where is the planning application, or the Minerals Local Plan that would make a valid application possible?

I don't know tbh, I spent last night trying to find a habitat survey for the woodland and I couldn't find that either, which is surprising if there is a real threat to the area

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know tbh, I spent last night trying to find a habitat survey for the woodland and I couldn't find that either, which is surprising if there is a real threat to the area

 

Exactly my point. There is no application to object to, yet, and it may be a good while before there is. The MLP won't get adopted until 2016, and may well exclude the area. A topographical survey is a fancy way of describing, literally, "looking to see how the land lies" so it doesn't constitute any kind of threat to the woodland.

 

Let's not over-react to inaccurate sensationalist press reports, folks, it will diminish the impact when there really is something objectionable about to happen.

If the BBC can't be bothered checking facts, I'll do it myself then decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think the most positive step at this stage would be to comment on the consultation -- this is open on the Staffs CC web site until 5 December 2014. Righteous indignation may have a feelgood factor, making one think one is doing something useful. If that applies, by all means carry on, but it isn't the way the minerals planning system works in this country. Planning officers work by the book, not by emotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think the most positive step at this stage would be to comment on the consultation -- this is open on the Staffs CC web site until 5 December 2014. Righteous indignation may have a feelgood factor, making one think one is doing something useful. If that applies, by all means carry on, but it isn't the way the minerals planning system works in this country. Planning officers work by the book, not by emotion.

Quite. And an online petiton signed by 200 or 2000 people will have no more effect than one signed by 20 people or less. For your objection to carry any weight you have to demonstrate that you have thought about the issues involved and then set out your objections in your own words in a personal letter. Tagging aong on someone else's objection means little, whether that is by signing a petition or by sending in a standard template letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just received an email from the site handling the petition:

 

Brilliant news! : Lafarge Tarmac have asked Staffordshire County Council to withdraw Hopwas Woods from the Minerals Local Plan

 

smile.png

 

https://www.change.org/p/staffordshire-county-council-save-hopwas-wood-staffordshire/u/8579669?tk=sNuw-UCmATdyDtbCDjpyPoDxs3ZsI0A1EsfvMnvx3s8&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_update_email

 

Edited to add linky

Edited by Kendal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just received an email from the site handling the petition:

 

Brilliant news! : Lafarge Tarmac have asked Staffordshire County Council to withdraw Hopwas Woods from the Minerals Local Plan

 

smile.png

 

 

It'll only move somewhere else, i'm afraid we need quarries. There was a gravel quarry on the edge of our village for years and years. When they left the area was landscaped and returned to grazing farm land with an area also turned into a nature reserve. It is now a beautiful area, no sign a quarry was ever there, except that the fields are a lot flatter than the untouched land.

Casp'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think the most positive step at this stage would be to comment on the consultation -- this is open on the Staffs CC web site until 5 December 2014. Righteous indignation may have a feelgood factor, making one think one is doing something useful. If that applies, by all means carry on, but it isn't the way the minerals planning system works in this country. Planning officers work by the book, not by emotion.

It appears that local protests, along with the petition and the Woodlands Trust concern has stopped this happening, well done to all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll only move somewhere else, i'm afraid we need quarries. There was a gravel quarry on the edge of our village for years and years. When they left the area was landscaped and returned to grazing farm land with an area also turned into a nature reserve. It is now a beautiful area, no sign a quarry was ever there, except that the fields are a lot flatter than the untouched land.

Casp'

we do need quarries theres no arguing with that, in fact my absolute fav place is an old limestone quarry in north wales, there are 2 side by side one stopped working at least 50 years ago and next door stopped working around 10 years ago, the old quarry is alive with wildlife, i counted 7 variates of orchids one year, the new quarry is slowly developing into a similar condition and i love watching this happen.

 

both of these places ironically have the benefit of no grand landscape plan, no tree planting, nothing, just nature doing what it does best.

 

on the other hand digging up an established ancient woodland would be a massive loss of habitat, there will be some very specific species that only exist in this type environment and we should never take lightly their loss.

 

don't get me wrong i don't view trees or woodlands with rose tinted glasses, in fact i truly think we should be trying to exploit these places, grow timber extract it and use it, this is how these places were created and handed down to us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine if you signed the petition, with little knowledge, except what has been said on here, and because of that the Hopwas quarry was stopped and instead a quarry opened next to your village.You could argue it's better to destroy some woodland, which can be replanted later, than open a quarry next to loads of residents. You could hardly complain.

Casp'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine if you signed the petition, with little knowledge, except what has been said on here, and because of that the Hopwas quarry was stopped and instead a quarry opened next to your village.You could argue it's better to destroy some woodland, which can be replanted later, than open a quarry next to loads of residents. You could hardly complain.

Casp'

Not sure I would complain, the point about this type of woodland is that it can't be replanted somewhere else

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who says it can't? It can easily be replanted once the quarry has gone.

Casp'

No it can't we are talking about a complex Web of habitat and species created over hundreds of years, potentially this site has been under woodland cover since the last ice age

 

This may get me laughed at but it would be similar to knocking down the sistine Chappel and replacing it with some breeze blocks and slapping some emulsion over it

 

A new bit of planted wood does not compare to an area like this at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it can't we are talking about a complex Web of habitat and species created over hundreds of years, potentially this site has been under woodland cover since the last ice age

 

This may get me laughed at but it would be similar to knocking down the sistine Chappel and replacing it with some breeze blocks and slapping some emulsion over it

 

A new bit of planted wood does not compare to an area like this at all

Time, as far as the planet is concerned, goes quickly, years of woodland can be replaced in relatively no time. Planting new woodland is better, environmentally, than maintaining old woodland. Young trees use up more CO2, and, as we all know wink.png CO2 is responsible for every evil..

Casp'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time, as far as the planet is concerned, goes quickly, years of woodland can be replaced in relatively no time. Planting new woodland is better, environmentally, than maintaining old woodland. Young trees use up more CO2, and, as we all know wink.png CO2 is responsible for every evil..

Casp'

:-) sorry that's rubbish it really is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you say that?

Casp'

Because as I have said before mate, an ancient woodland is a massively complex Web of species and habitats, some of those species only exist in this habitat type

 

New woodlands are great and yes act as a short term carbon sink but in no way compare with an ancient woodland for habitat value

 

I am no tree hugger and like I said before, think we should exploit these areas in a sustainable way but digging them up is not sustainable

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.