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.
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 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.
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.
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.
