urgent help with some pictures of wildlife for community web
Discussion
Hi all,
I am helping with a local community group (no resources sadly) campaigning against a builder who are proposing to build on local green belt at the loss of the environment. The application is imminent. The group are developing a website and need some pics of wildlife from the area - does anybody have some good pics of UK wildlife - in particular something from the follwing list that they don't mind helping with? (a credit can be offered against the pic if you wish):
sparrow hawk
kestrel
owls
bats
roe deer
weazels and grey squirrels
If so can you PM me or just put them on here agreeing to such use? Thanks everybody.
I am helping with a local community group (no resources sadly) campaigning against a builder who are proposing to build on local green belt at the loss of the environment. The application is imminent. The group are developing a website and need some pics of wildlife from the area - does anybody have some good pics of UK wildlife - in particular something from the follwing list that they don't mind helping with? (a credit can be offered against the pic if you wish):
sparrow hawk
kestrel
owls
bats
roe deer
weazels and grey squirrels
If so can you PM me or just put them on here agreeing to such use? Thanks everybody.
For me, a photo of a roe deer taken 100 miles away wouldn't cut much of an argument. I think to make your case more strognly you need you say 'This is a (cute animal) taken in the area under dispute', not 'This is a (cute animal) which we think is there but we couldn't photograph it so here's one taken somewhere else'.
Sorry, just playing Judge.
Sorry, just playing Judge.
Simpo Two said:
For me, a photo of a roe deer taken 100 miles away wouldn't cut much of an argument. I think to make your case more strognly you need you say 'This is a (cute animal) taken in the area under dispute', not 'This is a (cute animal) which we think is there but we couldn't photograph it so here's one taken somewhere else'.
Sorry, just playing Judge.
Couldn't agree more, however needs must I am afraid. There is a fixed time to object to planning applications and sadly we don't have the luxury of hoping some of the threatened wildlife pose for pictures. this is the next best thing and any pictures that are used will not be claimed to be from the area, rather wildlife that is similar to that in the threatened area.Sorry, just playing Judge.
I appreciate the advice though, we are left fighting a rearguard action but better to fight and lose than just give up.
Thanks for all the pics everybody, I will pass them to the web person!
steveatesh said:
Simpo Two said:
For me, a photo of a roe deer taken 100 miles away wouldn't cut much of an argument. I think to make your case more strognly you need you say 'This is a (cute animal) taken in the area under dispute', not 'This is a (cute animal) which we think is there but we couldn't photograph it so here's one taken somewhere else'.
Sorry, just playing Judge.
Couldn't agree more, however needs must I am afraid. There is a fixed time to object to planning applications and sadly we don't have the luxury of hoping some of the threatened wildlife pose for pictures. this is the next best thing and any pictures that are used will not be claimed to be from the area, rather wildlife that is similar to that in the threatened area.Sorry, just playing Judge.
I appreciate the advice though, we are left fighting a rearguard action but better to fight and lose than just give up.
Thanks for all the pics everybody, I will pass them to the web person!
I know a little about wildlife photography, but more about planning and from personal experience on gaining planning permission on greenfield land - with respect, you are going about this the wrong way.
If the application is not in yet, you still have time. There are compulsory consultation periods that have to be adhered to.
IMHO, making a website may be of use if you have an axe to grind, but, you need to not fall into the trap that happens time and time again where a 'group' with misplaced ideas barks up the wrong tree. You have a right to be consulted, and have your views considered...
...but if you are making a website with photos of wildlife that is on the field - then the immediate presumption is that this is photos from the field. Without putting a large disclaimer right next to the photos saying 'stock photo - not from X field' which would negate the value of the photo entirely - then you run the risk of looking like a bit of a fraud - a stick that the developer will use to beat you with.
IMHO it's not how loud you bang a drum - it's how you play it. Councils run on policies, and are not swayed by NIMBYs unless they have views that are of material planning considerations.
From what you are saying, there is a large number of objectors - and you will have weeks/months to work with. If between you all you cannot come up with a haldful photos of wildlife from the field - then playing devil's advocate, it arguably it is not a problem.
IMHO, some stock photos only undermines your argument as it shows that the wildlife is so uncommon there you can't get a photo. But, if you really want to put forward a meaningful argument - then get some photos and do a survey of the field and get sightings backed up with dates and times. That might make the Council environmental consultant stand up and take notice.
PS Look for newts. Especially Great Crested ones. That'll really mess up their plans...
Unfortunately I agree with the others.
My brother is a senior planning officer for a council and sees this sort of thing all the time.
Mostly, people don't realise that unless you have rock solid objections based on studies and evidence from a planning and development point of view, then it will be ignored.
Even if every single person in a village signed a petition against something being built on the grounds that it was large, ugly, on a greenfield site, going to block a view, going to block sunset, involved cutting non protected trees down, involved demolishing an architecturally interesting old building... None of these things are relevant.
You must prove a case based on things like:
Will cause too much traffic for the local roads to cope with (but the chances are Highways have already said yes).
Will cause excessive noise at unsociable hours (factory for example).
Will destroy a site where rare and endangered species live (and you can prove this via expert)
People are mistaken who assume that enough people object strongly then something won't be passed, which is completely untrue.
Get hard evidence on the species living in the area that is to be built on via an expert, and see if they are actually endangered.
Good luck
My brother is a senior planning officer for a council and sees this sort of thing all the time.
Mostly, people don't realise that unless you have rock solid objections based on studies and evidence from a planning and development point of view, then it will be ignored.
Even if every single person in a village signed a petition against something being built on the grounds that it was large, ugly, on a greenfield site, going to block a view, going to block sunset, involved cutting non protected trees down, involved demolishing an architecturally interesting old building... None of these things are relevant.
You must prove a case based on things like:
Will cause too much traffic for the local roads to cope with (but the chances are Highways have already said yes).
Will cause excessive noise at unsociable hours (factory for example).
Will destroy a site where rare and endangered species live (and you can prove this via expert)
People are mistaken who assume that enough people object strongly then something won't be passed, which is completely untrue.
Get hard evidence on the species living in the area that is to be built on via an expert, and see if they are actually endangered.
Good luck
On the 'gaining evidence' angle, if it comes to gathering data on animal populations/distributions etc so you can present some scientific and independent data - it might be an idea to approach your local university and see if any biology/ecology lecturers are looking for ideas for student projects.
NB Don't bother with grey squirrels, but see if you can add some flora in too.
NB Don't bother with grey squirrels, but see if you can add some flora in too.
Simpo Two said:
On the 'gaining evidence' angle, if it comes to gathering data on animal populations/distributions etc so you can present some scientific and independent data - it might be an idea to approach your local university and see if any biology/ecology lecturers are looking for ideas for student projects
Good idea that.Will be a LOT cheaper than paying an expert.
Whenever I knock something down I have to prove there aren't things like bats living in there, and the local 'bat lady' charges hundreds to carry out a survey and write a report. She basically sits in a picnic chair for a few hours watching for bats, taking photos and looking for evidence such as bat poo.
Although I've learned to slash my costs by documenting the building exterior first via photo and mini report, stating there are no bats or evidence of bats, then emailing it to her and letting her charge 'just' £100 or whatever to agree with me and email back a certificate.
I still think its a complete racket though!
I think if you want this line of defence to go anywhere, you're going to have to find some significantly rarer beasties!
sparrow hawk
According to the RSPB, in the UK sparrowhawks are found everywhere, except for parts of the Scottish Highlands, the Western Isles and Shetland. 40,100 Breeding pairs in the UK. It has Green (completely unendangered) status.
kestrel
Surprisingly this has amber status, having declined in the 70s. I say surprisingly, as I've seen them all over the place, and in comparison am not aware of ever having seen a Sparrowhawk in the wild. There are still 36,000+ breeding pairs in the UK though.
owls
What sort of owls? They have varying conservation statuses. The Little Owl doesn't though, as it's an import.
bats
Surely all you'd need to do here is identify a bat roost on the land in question? Given that they're nocturnal, you're going to do bloody well to get a picture of one without lots of expensive equipment.
roe deer
The Roe deer is proving bloody successful at extending its range and numbers in England for seemingly no known reason.
weasels
Another very common, unthreatened species. Just because you don't see them, doesn't mean they're not widespread.
grey squirrels
Seriously? These little f
kers have near enough eradicated the native red squirrel population. The Daily Mail should be writing editorials about them!
sparrow hawk
According to the RSPB, in the UK sparrowhawks are found everywhere, except for parts of the Scottish Highlands, the Western Isles and Shetland. 40,100 Breeding pairs in the UK. It has Green (completely unendangered) status.
kestrel
Surprisingly this has amber status, having declined in the 70s. I say surprisingly, as I've seen them all over the place, and in comparison am not aware of ever having seen a Sparrowhawk in the wild. There are still 36,000+ breeding pairs in the UK though.
owls
What sort of owls? They have varying conservation statuses. The Little Owl doesn't though, as it's an import.
bats
Surely all you'd need to do here is identify a bat roost on the land in question? Given that they're nocturnal, you're going to do bloody well to get a picture of one without lots of expensive equipment.
roe deer
The Roe deer is proving bloody successful at extending its range and numbers in England for seemingly no known reason.
weasels
Another very common, unthreatened species. Just because you don't see them, doesn't mean they're not widespread.
grey squirrels
Seriously? These little fkers have near enough eradicated the native red squirrel population. The Daily Mail should be writing editorials about them!Thanks for all that everybody, obviously I didn't say the whole story in the initial post but everything you mention is all beng addressed. The website etc is merely part of a broader communications package to make the community aware, given that the best way to lose this is public apathy, and part of the strategy is to show people what they will lose to get them agitated enough to write good letters of objection, based on the application and planning legislation rather than woolyness.
The objections will all be around the planning regulations including everything mentioned above and more, already identified. We know petitions are useless, it's individual letters that count with the right content too, so that will also be covered. We are fortunate enough to have a property lawyer in the affected area, and she is providing advice too. We think the builders are either on a fishing exercise to see if they can get away with it OR they are in collusion with the council in exchange for some funding under Sec 106 to improve a local road network.
Either way we intend to make them work for it - builders didn't help themselves when they made it known at a local consultation event that the planned executive houses were " not for the likes of you, they are for people from (named nearby expensive housing areas)" and that they "don't really care what you in the community think, we are only talking to you because we have to". Good community consultation in action, lol.
I really appreciate your advice, and help with the pics too.
The objections will all be around the planning regulations including everything mentioned above and more, already identified. We know petitions are useless, it's individual letters that count with the right content too, so that will also be covered. We are fortunate enough to have a property lawyer in the affected area, and she is providing advice too. We think the builders are either on a fishing exercise to see if they can get away with it OR they are in collusion with the council in exchange for some funding under Sec 106 to improve a local road network.
Either way we intend to make them work for it - builders didn't help themselves when they made it known at a local consultation event that the planned executive houses were " not for the likes of you, they are for people from (named nearby expensive housing areas)" and that they "don't really care what you in the community think, we are only talking to you because we have to". Good community consultation in action, lol.
I really appreciate your advice, and help with the pics too.
steveatesh said:
We think the builders are either on a fishing exercise to see if they can get away with it OR they are in collusion with the council in exchange for some funding under Sec 106 to improve a local road network.
It will certainly be this in any case because of the CIL and some counties affordable housing 'contributions'.What the council will get is a chunk of money to do something it needs to do with, as well as having a proportion of 'affordable houses' which end up being rented by 'local people' on housing schemes etc.
Come on, don't tell me that because someone allegedly saw a weasel once that local affordable housing is not a good thing?
Simpo Two said:
It's how you sell it.
'Affordable housing' = future slum
just as
'Investment' = spending
Quite. What they usually do is build an executive development, sell it off plan, then complete their 'affordable housing' contribution by putting in a block of two bed terraces or one bed flats which then go to housing associations or the council. Then a few years later the residents of the executive development are up in arms when their executive park area is populated by chav kids and their dad's daags.'Affordable housing' = future slum
just as
'Investment' = spending
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff