Spring Has Sprung...Just

In mid-February, I spent a cold early morning hour and a half at Rossall Point, with a brisk north-north-easterly wind. I should have known better than to have a look on a northerly, as it rarely produces any birds on our side of the country, but you never know… It didn’t, it was very quiet. 

A few waders were on the shore as the tide ran in, including 90 Oystercatchers, 298 Sanderlings, 84 Dunlins, 105 Turnstones, and 14 Ringed Plovers.

Sanderling

 

Ringed Plovers
 

The best bird amongst the 14 Eiders, single Red-throated Diver and Great Crested Grebe, was the first winter Shag on its commute from the Marine Lakes to a favoured foraging area no doubt. 
 

I have been checking the Pinkies in the fields adjacent to Amounderness Way, and there was a single Barnacle Goose with the 450 Pink-feet. 
 

The following day, Gail and I checked our net rides at the Nature Park, to see if they were flooded or not. And they weren’t too bad, certainly workable, but as you will read later, when we went back for our first ringing session they were a little more flooded, causing us a few problems! 

 

It was bitterly cold as we walked round, and with the wind being easterly, all the wildfowl were sheltering on the near bank of the main pool out of sight. A few Gulls were roosting on the various pools, with some resplendent looking Herring Gulls (63 of them), and 45 Black-headed Gulls.

One of our local walks from home includes the duck pond in Cleveleys, and it was interesting to note that on one afternoon visit towards the end of February, there were three first winter Common Gulls amongst all the young Herring Gulls. Something that we haven't recorded here before, after many years of looking.  
 

On 21st February, we were at Jubilee Quay late morning (part 1 of our WeBS count), and we were just counting the Redshanks when they all flushed. I instantly thought “raptor,” but it was the RNLI in their D class boat paddling along the main channel, presumably on some kind of exercise. I forgave them for flushing the Redshanks, as I have a great deal of respect for the yellow men and women in the orange boats. 

The birds settled down, and there was a respectable total of 239 Redshanks, with 16 Teal, and 14 Oystercatchers. A cracking male Sparrowhawk flew the full length of stone quay wall just above the water, but there was absolutely no chance with my photographic skills of getting a shot, and we just preferred to enjoy it instead.

 Redshanks

 

The following day it was WeBS (Wetland Bird Survey) part 2 for Gail and I. We surveyed one of our sites yesterday, and did our second site (reservoir at Thornton) today. 

Walking down the path to the estuary, we had a nice encounter with a Roe Deer, in the adjacent field that is nearly all Phragmites now. The deer was watching us, as we enjoyed watching it, and after a few minutes it got fed up of watching us, and moved away. 

Roe Deer

 

A Common Toad was a pleasure to see, as always, as it crossed the path in front of us heading to a spawning pond nearby no doubt. 

Common Toad (above & below)

 

  

Lots of birds were singing as we walked along the footpath through the scrubby hedgerow, including a couple of Song Thrushes. A Sparrowhawk, where the path joins the estuary, and a circling Buzzard riding the warm air currents, were our only raptors. 

Out on the reservoir were seven Coots, four Little Grebes, a male Pochard, and 26 Tufted Ducks. 

Pochard and Tufted Duck

I can remember back in the early 1980s it was easy to record over 100 Pochards, during winter, on what is now the Nature Park and this reservoir, but nowadays they are only recorded in low single figures, and often feature on local bird news groups as they are now so scarce. 

The breeding population is stable, but WeBS shows a declining trend in numbers, that is partly thought to be driven by milder winters, keeping more water-bodies on mainland Europe ice free. This ensures that feeding opportunities remain closer to Pochard breeding areas, and there is no need to head west to winter in the UK. 

We had a look on the river and recorded 80 Dunlins, 360 Lapwings, 60 Redshanks, and an ever-present Rock Pipit.

Gail and I ran our Thornton Cleveleys garden light trap for the first time on the night of 25th/26th February, and we just recorded one moth, a Clouded Drab.

Clouded Drab
 

Later in the morning, Gail had an Optician’s appointment in Cleveleys, so whilst Gail was having her eyes tested, I stretched my legs along the promenade as far as Rossall School and back.

Feeding out on the Honeycomb Worm reef, were 224 Oystercatchers, 37 Turnstones, a Sanderling, and three Curlews. 

There were some signs that spring had sprung, with a couple of Goldfinches heading north, and a Grey Wagtail following suit. 

I expected a high-flying Skylark to be doing the same, but it was heading south. I have noticed this many times before with Skylarks, they do seem to like flying into the wind, even when this is opposite to the seasonal migratory direction. Lots of times I have seen them head out across Morecambe Bay in late autumn/winter, when the wind has been northerly!

Skylarks do fly into the wind to aid their rapid vertical ascent, when undertaking a song flight, but they also do it outside the breeding season. I had a look through The Skylark by Paul F. Donald, but could not find anything on the subject. Other species do it as well, but it is more pronounced in Skylarks. Flying into wind will increase the airflow over the wing, generating more lift, and maybe that is simply the reason. 
 

A male Stonechat in the dunes at Rossall School could easily have been a migrant as well, and a hovering Kestrel, and a singing Song Thrush, scribbled themselves on to the pages of my notebook. Far better than waiting in the Opticians… 

 

Stonechat (above & below)

I sacrificed time out in the field over the last weekend in February, to build ten next boxes for Pied Flycatchers, to replace any dilapidated boxes at our Pied Flycatcher nest box scheme at the Boar Park, and any that are not used there will be put up for Tree Sparrows on our good friend’s farm near Nateby. 

 

I had a walk along the Wyre from the Quay on the previous Friday morning, and in the Quay on the falling tide were 161 Redshanks, and eight Teal. At the confluence of the river and the dock channel, were 33 Lesser Black-backed Gulls, 12 Wigeon, and nine Oystercatchers, and on the river were a pair of Eider. I look forward to this time every year, to enjoy the passage of Lesser Black-backed Gulls in their spanking crisp white and dark grey plumage, contrasting so well with their flushed yellow legs. Gorgeous. 

The following morning, I had a look on the sea off Larkholme, but it was very quiet, with just 22 Cormorants, four Shelducks, single Red-throated Diver and Great Crested Grebe in summer plumage, and seven Common Scoters.
 

A little bit of ‘vis’ was just detectable with a handful of Meadow Pipits and Goldfinches north. A singing Cetti’s Warbler was giving its explosive song from an area of scrub, and damp vegetation in the farm/school fields. 

A couple of other snippets from the beginning of March include 70 Magpies roosting in The Towers at Cleveleys early evening, and a Ring-necked Parakeet calling away towards dusk there the following day, and up to 11 Common Frogs in our tiny Thornton Cleveleys garden pond.

Common Frog

A few mornings later, Gail and I went out looking for a few early insects. The fact that our garden light trap had drawn a blank, didn’t bode well. We first looked at the Quay, but there was nothing doing there, so we decided to have a look at the dunes surrounding the Marine Lakes. No insects, but a few birds, including 15 Mute Swans, 66 Redshanks, a few Turnstones, and male Stonechat and Red-breasted Merganser. 

On 4th March I was at the Point for first light, and even though the sea was quiet, there was some very definite visible migration, more signs that spring has sprung! A few Pink-footed Geese, 57, headed north-east over the bay, as did 13 Whooper Swans. 

When I was at my watch-point I kept on hearing Long-tailed Tits calling, I would turn round and see nothing, and thought I was hearing things, and then I picked them up, 14 ‘Lotties’ climbing, and heading high to the east. Migration never ceases to amaze me.

Other passerines on the move were 45 Linnets, seven Meadow Pipits, an Alba Wagtail, three Goldfinches, and two Chaffinches, or at least two Chaffinch call registrations! 

Linnets (above & below)
 

 

Out on the shore were six Turnstones, 171 Oystercatchers, a nice flock of 77 Grey Plovers, 70 Dunlins, 260 Sanderlings, and 14 Ringed Plovers. 

The sea was quiet with just seven Cormorants, nine Common Scoters, seven Red-breasted Mergansers, a single Red-throated Diver, 20 Eiders, and four Shelducks. 

In the grounded camp were two male Stonechats, and a Goldcrest.

Back home our moth trap was once again devoid of moths, but I did manage to ‘snap’ a White-legged Snake Millipede that was curled up underneath the trap. They are very common, but fascinating creatures no less. 

White-legged Snake Millipede

The following morning, we packed our feeding station up at our good friend’s farm near Nateby, and as it was such a pleasant morning we had a walk through the woodland, and a look on the wetland. There was a good smattering of bird song, including our first Chiffchaff of the spring. Treecreepers are always a delight to see, and we enjoyed watching one for a few minutes as it made its way from tree to tree. 

Out on the wetland, were at least 100 Teal, and 20 Snipe, and a couple of Redwings and a croaking Raven were noteworthy. And we had our first bee of the year, in the form of a queen Buff-tailed Bumblebee. 

Buff-tailed Bumblebee

The weather was trying in early March, and after it stopped raining on Friday morning (6th), I headed up to the Quay for a walk. The tide was running in, but there was still plenty of mud available, and Redshanks numbered 234. 

Ten males, and 12 female Teal were feeding along the edge of the mud, and just five Wigeon were in the dock channel. At the mouth of the dock channel were 28 Lesser Black-backed Gulls with 29 Herring Gulls. The odd Meadow Pipit and Grey Wagtail headed north, and a Rock Pipit was on the embryo saltmarsh. 
 

I called in at the cemetery on my way home, and it was nice to see a few plants flowering, in the form of Red Dead-nettle, Common Fumitory, and Lesser Celandine.

Common Fumitory

Red Dead-nettle

The following morning, Gail and I attempted our first ringing session at the Nature Park. When I loaded my mist net poles on to the roof rack of my car at 0530, it was clear and frosty, and then when we came out of the house at 0600 it was foggy! Not the conditions we were hoping for.

On site, our net rides were quite wet, and we only managed to put up one 40-foot net. We knew that this, combined with the foggy conditions, would mean that we would be lucky to ring anything, and that was the case.

Flooded net ride.

The sun did burn the fog away after a couple of hours, but it was too late by then, and I suspect that the bay to the north was still ‘locked down’ with murk. As we put the single net up, we were serenaded by four Cetti’s Warblers, and at least two squealing Water Rails. Little Grebes were ‘singing’ as well, and on the main pool there were at least eight birds, with nine Coots and four Tufted Ducks. 

A Sparrowhawk being mobbed by a Carrion Crow, and a male Stonechat, were the best of the rest.  

On 10th March, Gail and I carried out our annual maintenance check of our Pied Flycatcher nest box scheme in the Hodder Valley near Chipping.We have 45 nest boxes in this area of ancient semi-natural woodland, and today we replaced 5 boxes, and put an additional one up, so there are 46 boxes waiting for the birds to arrive. 

 

New nest box

 

Lots of Opposite-leaved Golden Saxifrage were flowering alongside Dog’s Mercury, and Lord’s-and-Ladie’s were growing nicely. Among the greens and browns of the woodland floor, and delicate yellows and greens of the Saxifrage and Dog’s Mercury flowers, vibrant red from the Scarlet Elfcups added a splash of colour. 

Dog's Mercury

 

Lords-and-Ladies 

 

Opposite-leaved Golden Saxifrage 

A few birds accompanied us as we walked up and down the flanks of the wooded valley carrying ladder, nest boxes, and tools, including Song Thrush, Nuthatch, Chaffinch, Siskin, Great Spotted Woodpecker, and Mistle Thrush.   

As you know, Pied Flycatchers nest in upland, wooded valleys in the west of the UK, but in the early 1990s we had a pair nesting in the Fylde! 

We used to monitor some nest boxes, and carry out bird surveys, for British Nuclear Fuels at their plant at Salwick, that has quite a bit of woodland in it. I received a phone call from our contact at BNFL, Jim, when we carried out a visit on site, to say that one of the BNFL Police Officers had seen a black and white bird going into one of our boxes. 

At this point I could not for the life of me think what it could be, and Pied Flycatcher was certainly not on my mind. It was also quite late in the breeding season, and the Tit species that we monitored had all fledged, so that confused me even more.

I went on site to have a look, found which box it was, watched from a distance, and sure enough there was a male and female Pied Flycatcher going in and out of the box with insect food. I put my ladder up, lifted the lid, and was greeted by a brood of Pied Flycatcher chicks! 

What was interesting, was that the box that they had chosen, was probably as close to their upland, wooded valley habitat that they could find. The box was on Oak, and next to a ditch, with Oak and water being two physical attributes associated with Pied Flycatchers.

Nature never ceases to amaze me. 

Last Saturday morning didn’t go as planned. The plan was to get up at 2:30 am, watch the Chinese F1 sprint race, go back to bed, get up again at 5:30 am and go birding at Larkholme. The first bit went to plan, but not the second. I convinced myself at 5:30 am that it wouldn’t be that great on the sea particularly, as the wind was north-westerly, and that is probably true. But what a lightweight… 

Gail and I got out mid-morning, and we went for one of our regular walks along the Wyre from the Quay. The tide was falling, and I suspect the tide had dropped enough for the waders to move on to other foraging sites, as we just had 14 Redshanks and six Oystercatchers. Wildfowl numbers are dropping now and we counted only five Wigeons and two Teal. 

A few Meadow Pipits and Alba Wagtails were heading high, north, with the odd Woodpigeon as well. But what lifted our spirits were the Small Tortoiseshell butterflies. It was warm along the Quay, and we both had to lose a layer of clothing to prevent overheating, and at least ten of these gorgeous butterflies were on the wing. 

Small Tortoiseshell (above & below)

 

 

We also had a eight 7-spot Ladybirds, and I suspect we would have had a lot more if we had looked for them, these were just individuals that crossed our path, so to speak.

7-spot Ladybird

We decided to have a look at the dunes at the Marine Lakes, but even in areas that we thought would be sheltered it was cool in that north-westerly.

Sometimes though, you have an experience that renews your faith in humanity, and you think perhaps that nature might have a chance. Gail and I were stood straining our ears and eyes skywards, listening to and watching, a Skylark displaying over the dunes. A young guy came up behind us, with a dog on a lead (a good start), and a can of lager in his hand, and asked what the beautiful bird song was that we were listening to. We pointed out the Skylark, he was obviously thrilled, he thanked us and was on his way. That made our morning that did…  

 

Another sign that spring has sprung, is the fact that our small garden pond is now full of frog spawn. We were starting to worry that we weren't going to get any this year, despite there being up to 11 Common Frogs in the pond, both males and females. Then on 11th March there was a single clump, seven days later than our first last year, and this morning (16th) there are five clumps. Fabulous! 

 

Frog spawn
 

On this day (16th March) in 2018, Gail and I were at Mersehead RSPB on the Solway in south-west Scotland, and spring most certainly had not sprung! It was a cold, dreich day, with frequent showers, and a cool easterly wind. Mersehead is one of our favourite reserves, so it is always a pleasure to be there whatever the weather.

 

It was all about wintering wildfowl on this morning, and we were delighted with the 587 Barnacle Geese, nine Gadwall, 66 Teal, 15 Pintails, 23 Wigeon, and 15 Shovelers. Finishing as always with a hot coffee in the visitor centre, and watching the comings and goings at the feeding station.  

And The Destruction Continues

Every time I drive to some of the sites that I record the natural history at on the Fleetwood peninsula, I have to pass an area of habitat destruction, that is pure wanton ecological vandalism, facilitated by Wyre Council. This is going to be a very negative post I'm afraid, but just writing about it helps to reduce my Eco-anxiety levels. Despite paying lip service to biodiversity, Wyre Council are, in my personal and professional opinion, the foremost facilitator of ecological destruction and degradation in the local area, and you have to ask your self why. My previous post on Jubilee Quay, an area of functionally linked land to nationally and internationally designated sites is a prime example of this. And in the case of Jubilee Quay, Wyre Council were not the facilitator, but the agent that was proposing to cause ecological damage.

 

In the case I am writing about here, they are the facilitators, by granting planning permission for a development on an area of important habitat within the local area. I touched upon this development in a previous post on 13th October 2023, which if you so wish you can read HERE 

 

I did object to the application at the time, and this will form the basis of this post. I received an acknowledgement of my objection from Wyre Council, which included a huge amount of ornithological data relevant to the application, but interestingly, and not surprisingly when you consider the dishonest reputation of this organisation, my objection is not listed on the comments section of the planning application. I wonder why? When you click on 'public comments' it states there are no comments lodged for this application. Really?

 

The planning application referred to an area of open mosaic habitat on land south of Winward Avenue, Fleetwood, Lancashire, that is to become a new factory for the manufacture of Fisherman's Friend lozenges.

 

I said that I wished to object to this planning application on the grounds that the development will cause the loss of several breeding bird species, some specially protected through Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and others red-listed on the Birds of Conservation Concern. The site also provides habitat for birds migrating through the Fleetwood peninsula, both in spring and autumn, and the Fleetwood peninsula is the first land-fall for migrants crossing Morecambe Bay. Already, several bird species within the UK are being displaced by climate change, and their range is contracting northwards, and it is important that habitat is provided for these species to assist in climate change adaptation, and a classic species that is declining rapidly because of climate change is the Willow Warbler which breeds on this site. 

In addition to this, the proposed development will have a considerable negative impact on bird species utilising Fleetwood Marsh Nature Park during the breeding season, and during  migration. 

The first thing that I pointed out, is that some of the ecological surveys provided were out of date, particularly the breeding bird survey that was completed between April and July 2021. Most surveys are valid from between 12 months and 2 years, and in some circumstances up to 3 years. 

The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (CIEEM) (2019) state that if the data is 18 months to 3 years old a professional ecologist will need to undertake a site visit, and may also need to update desk study information, and then review the validity of the report. 

The likelihood of surveys needing to be updated increases with time, and is greater for mobile species. Factors to be considered are whether the site supports a mobile species which could have moved on site, or changed its distribution within a site, or whether the local distribution of a species in the wider area around a site has changed. Bird species are highly mobile, and it is the major fauna group where the survey data is considered out of date after 2 years. In the past I have had to complete many repeat surveys for sites that I surveyed just over 2 years ago, where various developments have not gone ahead within the timescale for the data provided not to be out of date. 

I stated in my objection, that I would therefore respectfully suggest that a series of six repeat bird surveys, between the end of March and early July are completed in 2024, before any decision on planning is formally made, to ensure that the bird data is not out of date.

 

Of course this didn't happen, because if the application had been delayed, it would have been subject to Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), that came in around February 2024, and to achieve the BNG metric that would have been required, would have been very difficult for this site. Funny that, isn't it?    

I commented almost exclusively on the negative impacts on local bird populations that this development would undoubtedly have, as this is my area of expertise. I read the breeding bird survey completed by Appletons in 2021 for Lofthouse of Fleetwood Ltd, and I had several points that I raised about some of the contents of the report. 

On pages 14 and 15 of the report under 'section 5 Discussions and Recommendations', the report states that…in many respects the Project Jupiter site is a discrete ‘island’ of habitat, not linked to most of the surrounding land. This is untrue. I agreed that the urban landscape to the north and west of the site creates unsuitable habitat for most species nesting on site, but I totally refuted the statement that the reedbed of Fleetwood Marsh Nature Park creates a marked habitat contrast, so movement between the site and Fleetwood Marsh Nature Park will be limited to just a few species, although there was no evidence of such movement noted during the survey visits.

From this point in I will refer to the Project Jupiter site as the development site, and where necessary Fleetwood Marsh Nature Park as the Nature Park. 
 
The reedbed at Fleetwood Marsh Nature Park does not create a marked habitat contrast. There are differences of course, as the development site does not contain as much as reedbed, but within the reedbed at Fleetwood Marsh Nature Park there is a high percentage of mature scrub, and in places it is a very dry reedbed. The boundary between Fleetwood Marsh Nature Park and the proposed development site, as can be see from aerial imagery, consists of mature scrub. There will most certainly be movement between both areas, of bird species breeding within the development site and that of the Nature Park. 

 

I am surprised that a competent ornithologist could suggest otherwise. And to then say that there was no evidence of such movement noted during the survey visits, is said in such an ambiguous way, as to suggest to the reader of the report that there would not be such movements. I do not doubt the report author when they say that no such movement was noted during the survey visits, as it would be virtually be impossible to note any such movements of the bird species breeding both within the development site and Fleetwood Marsh Nature Park, as we are talking about small passerine bird species here after all!  

                                                                                                                              

So, the report authors were saying what Wyre Council wanted to hear, because if they had stated that it would have a negative impact on the Nature Park it would have made it more difficult to approve. Contractors have cleared the site of vegetation this winter, and are still clearing vegetation now, even though we are in the breeding season, so sadly, I will be able to prove after this year how much of a negative impact the development has had on the Nature Park, because my ringing totals of breeding birds will undoubtedly reflect this.

To say that the proposed development site is in many respects is a discrete ‘island’, is inaccurate. 

The report goes on to say that Fleetwood Marsh Nature Park is already subject to a significant volume of human disturbance - works at the docks, the residential housing to the north north-east, the water treatment works to the south-west, high footfall of dog-walkers on the network of footpaths crossing the site and a model aircraft flying field immediately to the east. It is therefore unlikely, once the construction phase is complete, that a new development to the west will significantly increase this disturbance, particularly if a strip of buffer habitat is left, or reinstated, between the development and nature park boundary.

Again, this statement is completely inaccurate, and I would prefer to say, it is an absolute load of bollocks. I would counter that the new development is highly likely to significantly increase the disturbance of both breeding and migrating birds at Fleetwood Marsh Nature Park. In addition to this, I would also disagree with the assertion that the Nature Park is already subject to a significant volume of human disturbance. In certain areas it is, but overall, it is not. I questioned what the author based this assertion on. Did they carry out surveys on the level of disturbance at the Nature Park, and over which areas, and if they did, I asked it it was possible to see the results? Nothing was forthcoming, so that is the answer.  

The total area of Fleetwood Marsh Nature Park is 18.03 ha. 8.59 ha of this has no public access at all, and is left undisturbed for wildlife. The only access into this area is for the purposes of monitoring breeding and migrant bird populations, of which I have done so since 2005. There is no access over a further area of 2.71 ha within which the model aircraft flying club operate. And of this 2.71 ha, only 0.57 ha is given over to the airfield, clubhouse, and car park. The area that the model aircraft club operate in, provides important nest sites for Skylark, Grasshopper Warbler and Stonechat. The fact that there is no public access in this area means that breeding birds are not disturbed. This area is also important as a staging area for migrant Wheatears and Whinchats. 

Therefore, there is no public access, and no disturbance to 11.3 ha of the total area of 18.03 ha of the Nature Park, which equates to 63% of the total area being undisturbed. Hardly a significant volume of human disturbance! Again, the report authors writing what the developers, Wyre Council, and statutory consultees want to hear.   

A strip of buffer habitat left or reinstated will do nothing to lessen the significant impact on bird populations within the Nature Park.

The inference of this statement regarding the water treatment works to the south-west, is that the water treatment works is contributing to potential human disturbance at the Nature Park. Again, this is not true, and is totally inaccurate. I carried out a programme of bird monitoring, on behalf of United Utilities, as part of the British Trust for Ornithology’s (BTO) bird ringing scheme, during the winters of 2014 – 16, and I can be certain that there is absolutely no human disturbance from this site that could impact on the Nature Park, this is impossible. The site is extremely quiet, and most of the habitat at this site, made up of woodland planting to screen the water treatment works, is behind a secure fence with virtually no access other than to maintain fences. 

I can categorically state, based on the above, that the statement within this section, that it is therefore almost exclusively the species using the site itself which will be negatively impacted by the development, is untrue. Species within the important area for breeding and migrating birds at the Nature Park will be negatively impacted by the development.  

I monitor the breeding and migrating bird populations at the Nature Park on an annual basis, through a programme of bird ringing under the auspices of the BTO, and have done since 2005, and aim to visit the site at least twice per month from March through to November, weather and ground conditions permitting. I attached the annual ringing totals for the Nature Park on a year and visit basis to my objection, to illustrate the importance of the site for breeding and migrating bird populations. I stated that it is imperative that this site maintains its protected nature conservation status, and is not negatively impacted by development in the area. 

I moved on to the statement that the provision of an area of seed-rich wild bird cover may benefit the Linnet population, and may also provide food and habitat for Greenfinch, Goldfinch and Reed Bunting. This may aid the maintenance of the Linnet population, when combined with creating nesting areas in thick, native vegetation.

An area of seed-rich wild bird cover would only benefit Linnets during the winter. The removal of the scrub and rank vegetation on site will remove nesting habitat for Linnets, and I disagreed with the author of the report when they said that Linnet could be more receptive to the planting of native vegetation as part of a mitigation plan. Where do they find these people to write such nonsense? 

I questioned whether the author of the bird report understood what is required in the provision of an area of seed-rich wild bird cover. Does the author really think that the developer will create an area of wild bird cover and re-establish it every other year? This is what is required to successfully establish, and more importantly maintain, an area of seed-rich wild bird cover. Of course, the author has no idea what is required to do this, as they will have no experience of the practicalities of habitat creation, and management. They might be able to identify a few birds, and pay lip service to what the developers and Wyre Council want to hear, and that is it. I stated that the answer is not to develop the site at all. 

The authors of the report also focused on the area of Fleetwood Marshes and Industrial Lands Biological Heritage Site (BHS) that will be damaged by the development. They stated that this is an area of 0.75 ha, and that post-development 1.41 ha of BHS will be restored, so a net gain of 0.66 ha of BHS habitat will be achieved. What a load of nonsense. The authors of the report are employing classic deflection techniques, making sure that the focus is on the BHS, and not on the rest of the site. What about the 6.56 ha of open mosaic habitat that will be destroyed? Below are some pictures of the open mosaic habitat that has been destroyed. When I took these pictures, Migrant Hawker dragonflies were whizzing past, using the open mosaic habitat to look for their insect prey. 

All of this beautiful habitat (above & below) has now been cleared

 

 

 

I hope that you will see from the above, my reasons for objecting to this development. The Ecological Impact Assessment completed by Appletons identified that nearly half of the development site consists of Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land (OMHPDL), although it is not clear when the site was last developed. Aerial imagery dating back to 2000 shows no development on the site since at least then. OMHPDL is a Habitat of Principal Importance (HPI), and it is my opinion that this was reason enough not to destroy it. 

The breeding bird survey completed by Appletons identified one Schedule 1 species, 9 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) 41 species, 8 red-listed species and 8 amber-listed species, all holding breeding territories within the development area. This in itself was reason, in my opinion, to refuse planning permission for the development as it is a rich assemblage of breeding birds, and it would be very difficult to mitigate for this loss. 

As evidenced above, there will be negative impacts on breeding birds at the Nature Park, despite the author of the report attempting to claim that this will not be the case. 

Some of the species that the development land is particularly important for, are either expanding their range northwards in a response to climate change, or are declining, and their range is contracting northwards because of climate change. The specially protected Schedule 1 breeding species, Cetti’s Warbler, is an example of the former, and Willow Warbler, is an example of the latter.

It is important to retain habitat that supports these species as areas of adaptation for climate change. New areas of this type of habitat also need to be created so these species can adapt to climate change, but this just highlights the urgent need to retain existing areas of mature scrub, whilst further areas are established.

There is no doubt that species utilising the habitat within the development area, will also be using the habitat found in the Nature Park. Both areas are contiguous, and are essential as areas of recruitment for species nesting in both areas. 

The other important aspect of the development land that I only touched upon, is its importance for migrating birds. The whole of the Fleetwood peninsula is important for migrating birds. You can stand anywhere on this peninsula in spring or autumn, and if your eyes and ears are tuned in, you will see and hear migrant birds passing over. The peninsula is the last area of land, or first land fall, after crossing Morecambe Bay, and the habitat found within the peninsula is important in providing foraging areas for these migrants. 

Areas of OMHPDL are rich in invertebrates, and provide an important food source for migrant birds.   

That was my objection, and still the development went ahead. Soon there will be nothing left on the Fleetwood peninsula. 

 

I had to laugh at a press release by these ecological hooligans, aka Wyre Council, today, regarding the planting of a community orchard in Fleetwood. There is nothing wrong with the planting of a community orchard, and I fully support such initiatives for reasons of increasing biodiversity and community engagement. However, when Wyre Council state that the planting of 20 trees are part of Wyre Council's ongoing commitment to tackle climate change..., you have to wonder where destroying 8 ha of grassland and scrub fits in with their ongoing commitment to tackle climate change. You couldn't make it up! 

 

More positivity will be restored in my next post. But, just before that, I have updated the ringing totals, over on the right, for Fylde Ringing Group, up until the end of February.