Stop the New Town in Hampshire!!!

Gruditch · Post by **Gruditch** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 7:03 pm

I thought this " NEW TOWN THE SIZE OF ANDOVER " sounded familar, I've done a bit of digging about and found that these were the same people that were trying to build 20,000 houses at Palestine near Grateley, just 3 miles up the road from me. This site believe it or not, would of meant a new town actually boardering Porton Down, one of the most important Butterfly sites in the UK.

Gruditch

Post by **Padfield** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:11 pm

OK, here's a swift draft for perusal, suggestions &c. If you don't think it good to have this publicly available, Pete, for the exclusivity clause, delete the post - but if the reference to today's article in the Times is to stand something has to go off soon.

To The Times:

Sir,

You report (February 4th) that another early spring risks luring birds, butterflies and other creatures into seasonally inappropriate behaviour.

For many of them, this is likely to seem tragically irrelevant when the bulldozers move in to transform current green-belt areas into new ‘Eco-towns’. To give a specific example, the proposed development of 12 500 houses on the green-field site of Micheldever, in mid-Hampshire, rejected at every planning level on several previous occasions, is again under consideration and a decision is expected in the next few weeks. Other similar projects are in the pipeline.

There is precious little point in hand-wringing over the effects of global warming on our indigenous flora and fauna if we allow political and commercial interests to concrete over what little unspoilt land remains in this country. The indirect effects of climate change, which nature has weathered successfully many times in the past, pale into insignificance beside the direct effect of man’s dead hand on our fields, copses and meadows.

If the developments at Micheldever and elsewhere are allowed to go ahead the prospects for our native wildlife look increasingly grim and nature may as well enjoy this false spring. In places, it may be her last.

Faithfully,

Peter Eeles (&c.) on behalf of UKButterflies.co.uk.

Guy

Post by **Pete Eeles** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:23 pm

Thanks Guy! I agree we should send this soon since, as you say, there's a very pertinent article today that we can respond to (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 307706.ece).

A few things I might change, based largely on my ignorance:

"The indirect effects of climate change, which nature has weathered successfully many times in the past" may seem contentious since we don't really know if major climate changes have been weathered well.

"pale into insignificance beside the direct effect of man’s dead hand"
Why "dead" hand?

Anyway - it might be more appropriate for you to send this on behalf of UK Butterflies, which I'd be OK with. Or add my name and say it's from both of us. We could also add some information about the website (in terms of visitor numbers) to get their attention.

Thoughts? - and thanks again!

Cheers,

- pete

Post by **Padfield** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:48 pm

Thanks Pete. I'll wait until last thing tonight if I send it, so there is a chance for others to add their thoughts.

I'm just a tiny bit wary of sending it from me because I will have to add a daytime telephone number and address, both of which will be Swiss. I've had a couple of letters published in the Times, one quite recently, and there is also the risk of some cynic responding, 'Is this the same Guy Padfield who does microwave experiments on his dishcloth in rural Switzerland?'

That's a small consideration, though, and I'm quite happy to have it go in my name.

I could qualify "which nature has weathered successfully many times in the past" by saying, "which nature has seemingly weathered successfully many times in the past". I can also remove 'dead', which I only put in for poetic effect!! I would also change, "fields, copses and meadows" to "fields, copses and hedgerows", which would be more appropriate to farmland.

Anyone else who has comments, objections, additions, please respond - I would like to write as from our community, not just from me.

Guy

George · Post by **George** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 8:56 pm

That's great Guy & Pete! I feel much better that we are doing something to bring this to more public attention. Anything we can do to create wider public awreness of the issues facing us at the moment has to be good.

Thanks

alex mclennan · Post by **alex mclennan** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:08 pm

Pete/Guy
If you think a 'list' of signatories would be appropriate, feel free to add my name (and address if required) to the letter.
Alex

Rogerdodge · Post by **Rogerdodge** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:13 pm

If you think a 'list' of signatories would be appropriate, feel free to add my name (and address if required) to the letter.

Ditto
Roger Harding

Post by **Padfield** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 9:15 pm

Thanks George and Alex. Edit: ... and Roger! Our posts crossed!!

If enough people say they want to be co-signatories I shall happily put something like, 'Guy Padfield, Peter Eeles, Alex McLennan et al. on behalf of http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk'.

The chances of publication are slim, of course, but you've got to be in to win, as they say!

Guy

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:11 pm

You can add Martin Jenkins to the list of names!

Post by **Padfield** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:16 pm

Thanks Martin!

For the record, those bits Pete queried currently read:

"The indirect effects of climate change, serious though they may be, pale into insignificance beside the direct and immediate devastation wrought on our fields, copses and hedgerows by unconstrained development.

If the projects at Micheldever and elsewhere..."

George - I'd need a surname if I am to add your name (I couldn't get it from the membership list).

Guy

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:27 pm

add my name if its not too late.. great letter

Denise · Post by **Denise** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:30 pm

Paul Kipling wrote:add my name if its not too late.. great letter

Mine too.

Denise Whittle

Post by **Padfield** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:34 pm

Thanks all! I'll probably send shortly after midnight, my time (11.00pm UK time).

Guy

Post by **Padfield** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:07 pm

Sent.

Apologies to anyone else who wanted to sign, or to anyone who was not happy for the letter to go out in the UK Butterflies name. Speed was of the essence.

Guy

Post by **Pete Eeles** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:43 am

Thanks for coordinating this Guy - good job!

Cheers,

- Pete

Mike Young · Post by **Mike Young** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:49 am

I missed this flurry of exchanges, well done Guy

George · Post by **George** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:23 am

Sorry Guy missed the post about surname! For the record my name is George Cox.

Just a further thought - the whole conservation / government / pressure for building (caused I suspect mainly by the lack of control on immigration) issue is bigger than just butterflies & moths. What about plants, birds, mammals - organisations such as RSPB, Plantlife etc (there are quite a few) - would it be possible to co-ordinate something with all these groups acting together? Would it be practicle?

Surely weight of public opinion could eventually change or influence the way that the government think?

Piers · Post by **Piers** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:46 am

That's an excellently crafted letter Guy - succinct and to the point. Let us hope that the correspondence editor sees fit to publish it. Many thanks to you and to Pete for pulling it together.

George: Surely weight of public opinion could eventually change or influence the way that the government think?

Ha ha - what a delightful concept...!

Regards to all,

Felix.

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:03 pm

Felix wrote:That's an excellently crafted letter Guy - succinct and to the point. Let us hope that the correspondence editor sees fit to publish it. Many thanks to you and to Pete for pulling it together.

George: Surely weight of public opinion could eventually change or influence the way that the government think?
Ha ha - what a delightful concept...!

Regards to all,

Felix.

Ditto.

George · Post by **George** » Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:38 pm

ok ok ok!

Delightful concept it may be (and admittedly naive!) but does that mean that it cannot happen?

?