Is anywhere safe?

In the week when we are debating the legacy of our longest-serving post war Prime Minister, other events have raised questions about what is happening to our green and pleasant land and to the wonders of the deep blue sea.

Yesterday started well with the first chiffchaff of spring heard calling at the Lodge.  Yet, the mood changed when late in the afternoon we heard that Ministers had approved the extension to Lydd airport in Kent.  If this goes ahead, the people and wildlife of Dungeness will be hit hard and it will do nothing to help tackle climate change.  Dungeness is a weird and wonderful part of Kent (the county where I spent the first ten years of my life).  Today’s decision sends entirely the wrong signal about what sort of development is appropriate and wanted in our crowded island. 

At the other end of the county, we (along with many others) are still fighting the Medway Council proposal to build houses at Lodge Hill on the finest nightingale site in the country.

A hop, skip and a jump from my current home in Cambridge, we (along with many others) have objected to the proposed development of a new boathouse which we believe would have adverse effects on wildlife of a SSSI at Ely.

At Bexhill in Sussex, we recently heard that the Department for Transport has confirmed funding of £56m grant towards the construction of the Bexhill Hastings Link Road.  This has not gone down well with local people or environmentalists.  As I have written previously, we don't want to go back to the 1990s when road protests at sites like Twyford Down and Newbury became totemic environmental battlegrounds. 

These examples all come from the south and east of England, but across the UK, there are signs that development pressure is growing and could harm the special places which people love.  But, much of this is going against the tide of public opinion.

As is the continued failure of government to provide adequate protection for our finest wildlife sites at sea.  Over the past decade hundreds of thousands of people have called for better protection for the marine environment.  And despite new laws to create marine protected areas, the current government ambition falls short.  More confirmation of this came today when the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee released their report into the way that science and evidence are used in the marine environment.  It’s worth a read.  Conclusions include:

• The Government has not set a clear vision for MCZs and appears to have lost impetus for selecting them;
• The Government “shifted the goalposts” during the MCZ process to require a higher level of evidence, and should stick to its standard of best available evidence as set out in its initial MCZ guidance, and not delay sites further because of scientific uncertainty;
• It is not clear why the 31 sites being taken forward this year were selected and others not. MPs also want information on how the MCZs that haven’t come forward in the current tranche will be protected in the meantime; 
• A clear timetable, with a clear end date, is needed for the designation of the current and further tranches of MCZs must be provided by Government.

I agree.  And I am sure our supporters would as well. 

As I head off to York tomorrow for our annual members’ weekend, I know that I shall talk to lots of passionate people from all walks of life and of all ages (yes, some of our younger members do come along).  They are always up for a fight and help provide a sense of solidarity.  Supporters of the many environmental charities give confidence to do all of us to more.  So whether it is coming up with new plans to save special places in Kent or to speed up protection for marine wildlife, I know that, thanks to our supporters, we are all in it together.