Local wildlife under threat

[Misanthroper]

Wierd post this, but just something I’ve observed more and more and it’s started to bother me.

Short story long, my running route takes me along some paths through typical South East parkland and open spaces, all of which recently have sprung up with the telltale mounds of sand, prefab buildings, and machinery that you see everywhere these days. Every open field or bit of space has some new housing or warehousing estate being built on it around here, it’s like an epidemic, and it’s got to the point where open space just doesn’t exist anymore.

Now on my run I go along this long field, and a few times I’ll surprise a bunch of rabbits (hares maybe??) and they zoom off down the field in the same direction as me and we have a bit of a race going, I’m the tortoise who on these occasions doesn’t win the race. It’s a good laugh, but over the past couple weeks the inevitable building site equipment has started showing up on the field, and it’s been fenced off ready for development.

I’ve seen foxes, squirrels, and rabbits in abundance in this and other spaces that are now going to be new builds or warehouses, and it got me concerned about where the local wildlife will end up, everywhere they could have gone is also being built on, so where do they get squeezed to and what does their future look like??

Is there any requirement for these building firms to find local wildlife a new home or can they just build and displace with impunity? Is there anything I can do to try and help the situation? ( adoption is not an option as my garden is tiny!!)

I’m really hoping we aren’t just ignoring the plight of these animals as we try to meet housing demands, and someone has already considered this, otherwise I want to try and do something to secure a future space for them to live in.

[Turn7]

Do you really think a developer gives 2 F!Q$ about anything other than the cash ?

I agree, its heartbreaking to see.

We are hell bent on destruction, more people, more houses, more infrastructure.

[AndyAudi]

Generally there are environmental assessments done prior to developments to check they don’t impact any at risk species habitat/breeding grounds/migratory routes etc

However every day creatures there’s generally not so much concern & as you point out

Misanthroper said:

I’ve seen foxes, squirrels, and rabbits in abundance .

All of the above can still be found within housing developments & industrial estates, their populations are not too sensitive to change. (We move humans out of the way & knock down their houses too sometimes)

With roads there can be underpasses/overpasses built for wildlife corridors & there’s even squirrel bridges!

[WrekinCrew]

Crested newts are one of the few species they need to survey and relocate.
The irony is that they are quite common here but are.rare in Europe, so had a high level of protection when we were in the EU, and that still applies.

[Simpo Two]

WrekinCrew said:

Crested newts are one of the few species they need to survey and relocate.
The irony is that they are quite common here but are.rare in Europe, so had a high level of protection when we were in the EU, and that still applies.

Tell them you saw a bat.

But as part of Labour's build-even-more-houses programme they say they are going to make three new national forests: https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-hous...

[Nightmare]

I’m a bit conflicted on this subject. Having been into this sort of thing (wildflower/animals/conservation) a big way for around 45 years I’ve realised my views have changed a bit in terms of taking a bit of a longer term view.

Generally I’d be all for a massive drop in human population and no new stuff built. I am aware this isn’t going to happen though and have also had a chance to revisit places which were developed on over a long time period which has made me realise a few things

Short term (as in while it’s going on) development obviously sucks for wildlife massively. If you’re there when your home is dug up you won’t be happy. However, after the building has stopped you start developing new habitats. The biodiversity index of a grass field is surprisingly awful. It’s actually worse than an average tarmac car park.

Most industrial buildings now have pretty decent land enrichment clauses etc with them, so the end ‘commercial estate’ (or whatever) does generally now have some additional work required which usually ends up with some dedicated wildlife bits. But even without that, unless it’s very very tightly maintained, it will generally end up, long term, with a surprising amount of places for wildlife to live. Things like quarries and gravel pits are probably one of the best things that can happen for wildlife in any area - as long as you take a long term view of it - as after they’ve finished they usually become absolute havens for wildlife as they gain decent bodies of water.

All that said my instinct is still very much ‘stop fking building stuff there’s way too many humans already’. But I do think it’s not actually as bad as it might make you feel. Tho none of that makes the current residents feel any better

[Smint]

Northamptonshire is rife for this, its become the distribution and warehousing hub of the country with vast warehouses going up everywhere you look (no factories we don't make anything), except where the really well heeled live, plus sprawling housing estates for the poor blighters who have to work in them.

The county has, or had, large free roaming herds of deer, but they can be seen wandering lost as the woodlands they used to live in are gradually ripped out for further development.

Every day as i travel the county roads its rare i don't see a fresh ruined carcass that has been hit by one of the constantly increasing volumes of vehicles which are the result of the above, as i start work really early i've had numerous deer encounters but fortunately managed to avoid hitting one so far.

Course its not just my county, passing Sheffield a few weeks ago early morning a lone full size deer was standing at the side of the motorway slip road up on the elevated section by the main shopping area, as the morning traffic increased whichever way he hoped to go would mean crossing hellish roads, doubt he made it.

Never mind, so long as we continue to increase the population it means a growing GDP, thats all that matters to the soul-less in charge.

[Mabbs9]

I used to see Short-eared Owls and Barn Owls hunting over fields near me. Just horrible warehouses now. It's a simple fact that if we build lots we also kill off habitat.

[7mike]

AndyAudi said:

Generally there are environmental assessments done prior to developments to check they don’t impact any at risk species habitat/breeding grounds/migratory routes etc

They did one of those close to us, the local council were keen to point out the 'experts' they employed had categorically stated badger setts were not present. If I was even the least bit cynical, I'd think maybe someone was on the receiving end of backhanders

[theplayingmantis]

Smint said:

Northamptonshire is rife for this, its become the distribution and warehousing hub of the country with vast warehouses going up everywhere you look (no factories we don't make anything), except where the really well heeled live, plus sprawling housing estates for the poor blighters who have to work in them.

The county has, or had, large free roaming herds of deer, but they can be seen wandering lost as the woodlands they used to live in are gradually ripped out for further development.

Every day as i travel the county roads its rare i don't see a fresh ruined carcass that has been hit by one of the constantly increasing volumes of vehicles which are the result of the above, as i start work really early i've had numerous deer encounters but fortunately managed to avoid hitting one so far.

Course its not just my county, passing Sheffield a few weeks ago early morning a lone full size deer was standing at the side of the motorway slip road up on the elevated section by the main shopping area, as the morning traffic increased whichever way he hoped to go would mean crossing hellish roads, doubt he made it.

Never mind, so long as we continue to increase the population it means a growing GDP, thats all that matters to the soul-less in charge.

And yet quality of life declines for those already here. I wonder at what point population will be deemed too big? It wouldnt be so bad if it was spread out but many of the pro growth areas (hello Scotland) have no experience of thousands of acres of farm land and countryside being bulldozed and towns expanding rapidly.

There's a few small development sin the central belt but nothing like the scale in the south of England. Problem is no one wants to live up there.

[AndyAudi]

7mike said:

AndyAudi said:

Generally there are environmental assessments done prior to developments to check they don’t impact any at risk species habitat/breeding grounds/migratory routes etc

They did one of those close to us, the local council were keen to point out the 'experts' they employed had categorically stated badger setts were not present. If I was even the least bit cynical, I'd think maybe someone was on the receiving end of backhanders

That is poor & someone should have got knuckles wrapped for saying there were no badgers if there were, evidence of their presence is pretty obvious when you go looking for it.

However in my opinion & experience badgers are not not an “at risk species”. I would expect them to be encouraged to move for a development rather than development stopped. I think only rare wildlife would be preserved

[Smint]

theplayingmantis said:

And yet quality of life declines for those already here. I wonder at what point population will be deemed too big? It wouldnt be so bad if it was spread out but many of the pro growth areas (hello Scotland) have no experience of thousands of acres of farm land and countryside being bulldozed and towns expanding rapidly.

There's a few small development sin the central belt but nothing like the scale in the south of England. Problem is no one wants to live up there.

Ideal population? IIRC when Teresa May signed us up to the UN Global Compact for Migration i recall reading the UN's figure for Britains ideal population was 120 million.

[Mobile Chicane]

7mike said:

AndyAudi said:

Generally there are environmental assessments done prior to developments to check they don’t impact any at risk species habitat/breeding grounds/migratory routes etc

They did one of those close to us, the local council were keen to point out the 'experts' they employed had categorically stated badger setts were not present. If I was even the least bit cynical, I'd think maybe someone was on the receiving end of backhanders

The answer is that a 'primary' badger sett was not present. It is only primary setts which hinder development.

I have it on good authority that some ecology consultants are known to be less able to identify primary setts than others.

IYSWIM.

[Jasandjules]

7mike said:

They did one of those close to us, the local council were keen to point out the 'experts' they employed had categorically stated badger setts were not present. If I was even the least bit cynical, I'd think maybe someone was on the receiving end of backhanders

Funnily enough very similar happened here. A road where I walk the dogs has bats every night, you always see two at the top of the road and 2-3 about 200 yards further down (there are specific tree areas where the insects meet up and so they come right over your head). Yet three "experts" were unable to find bats apparently.. And so the houses are now being built.

[Simpo Two]

Jasandjules said:

Funnily enough very similar happened here. A road where I walk the dogs has bats every night, you always see two at the top of the road and 2-3 about 200 yards further down (there are specific tree areas where the insects meet up and so they come right over your head). Yet three "experts" were unable to find bats apparently.. And so the houses are now being built.

I would take that to a higher level and get the 'experts' shown up for being either incompetent or bent.

[QBee]

I have lived 3 miles out of a town in the East Midlands for the last 11 years.

Here, nowhere near London or Nortampton, they are building more houses, but more slowly than in your areas.

Going back to the start of the thread, we have far more rabbits and squirrels now than we did then, as the warming weather has curbed the tendency of our winter weather to control them.

Same goes for moles, and we notice them as we have lighter soil here.
My lawns are a joke, more bunker than fairway for the golfists among you.

[theplayingmantis]

Smint said:

theplayingmantis said:

And yet quality of life declines for those already here. I wonder at what point population will be deemed too big? It wouldnt be so bad if it was spread out but many of the pro growth areas (hello Scotland) have no experience of thousands of acres of farm land and countryside being bulldozed and towns expanding rapidly.

There's a few small development sin the central belt but nothing like the scale in the south of England. Problem is no one wants to live up there.

Ideal population? IIRC when Teresa May signed us up to the UN Global Compact for Migration i recall reading the UN's figure for Britains ideal population was 120 million.

i for one wouldn't want to be here in such a scenario. not that i will. call me a nimby, i am, but the southeast is depressing the scale of horrible new growth in most dormitory/market towns, cheaply built unsympathetic ugly new builds which will look crap in 100 years as well (to those who state new builds throughout history were deemed ugly), not to mention horrible chattering class londoners advocating population growth but then escaping ASAP - moving out into the sticks ruining once nice places for the locals - suffolk in my case.