You may know John as the Dorset-based forager who regualrly appears in the River Cottage TV shows. But he's also a fantastic writer and I've featured his books on this blog before (here).In this book, he and his wife take a series of walks in a variety of environments and locations where they set out to spot anything of interest from the natural world. Perhaps the most surprising chapter is one where they take a walk through central London. It's amazing how much wildlife they spot.
I was particulalrly struck by this paragraph:
'Towns and cities are often dismissed as barren wastes for wildlife, but this is a gross misrepresentation. When a new town or development is proposed on a greenfield site, I will not be writing immediately to the council to complain, instead I will look at the proposed site first. If it involves the destruction of ancient woodland, hedgerows that buzz with life, herb-rich pasture or the draining of a bit of wetland, then I will draft my objec-tion. But if it is to be built on intensive arable land, then I hold my peace. While we certainly need high-output arable land, its loss is, for the most part, directly ours, not that of the organisms that live there - indeed, there will be few to lose. Once all the building is complete, semi -wild areas are established, trees and gardens planted up and it will boast a thousand times the biodiversity of what was there before.'
That's a very interesting take on things. I live in an area surrounded by farms and there seems to be a protest every other week about some new proposed housing development on what was agricultural land. The farm has inevitably decided to part with the land to (a) make much needed money and (b) because the soil is pretty worked out and provides poor yields. The idea that a development would actually generate habitats is an interesting one - especially if the houses are as eco-friendly as possible. They could even follow the lead of places like Brighton and Hove where all new builds must include a bee brick (see here). If trees are planted, that's also a bonus as agricultural land often is tree-free to allow for easy ploughing. The addition of trees, wild spaces, ponds etc. also help to create biodiversity.
To be fair, most objectors around here aren't objecting to new houses per se. People need places to live. The two main objections are the fact that, firstly, these are rarely affordable homes for local young people who want to stay in the area - the Chiltern Hills area is quite affluent and very popular with London commuters. And, secondly, provisions are not made for a supporting infrastructure.
I live in an area that was built onto an existing village in the early 1960s. The estate, if we can call it that, consists of a central avenue with roads and crescents leading off it and amounts to around 500 homes. However, the contractors back then took note of the impact this would have on the existing community, so the estate was built with good road access to prevent congestion from 500+ extra cars. They also built two schools, a doctor's surgery, a community centre, allotments, a childrens play area, a large open space for outdoor games and tennis courts, and a parade of shops big enough to cater for most domestic needs. Sadly, these days, developers simply see the spaces that would be taken up by these amenities as places in which to cram more houses. Plus, many of these new builds don't have garages or off-street parking, which just adds to the congestion problem as kids are living at home for longer and some households can have four or five cars.
John Wright is coirrect. It's possible for environmentalists and developers to work in harmony to make something that benefits humans and Nature.
If only profit wasn't the only consideration.
Houses are mean to be homes, not investment opportunities.
No comments:
Post a Comment