RES­I­DENTS RE­PORTED WOODS WERE AN­CIENT

Buckinghamshire Advertiser - - OPINION -

ROBERT YOUNG Den­ham Green Lane Den­ham

I READ your ar­ti­cle re­gard­ing New­stead Wood with con­sid­er­able in­ter­est.

It is un­wor­thy of South Bucks Dis­trict Coun­cil to sug­gest that at the time of grant­ing out­line plan­ning per­mis­sion in June, the ev­i­dence avail­able sug­gested New­stead was not an an­cient wood­land.

Lo­cal res­i­dents in­formed the coun­cil many times that they be­lieved New­stead was an an­cient wood­land and were con­duct­ing his­tor­i­cal re­search to prove the point.

The coun­cil, how­ever, dis­missed the pos­si­bil­ity with er­ro­neous rea­son­ing, i.e. that a wood which had been felled in its history can­not be an an­cient wood­land.

Res­i­dents did in­form coun­cil that their rea­son­ing was in­valid and pro­vided them with Nat­u­ral Eng­land def­i­ni­tions of an­cient wood­land.

At the June plan­ning meet­ing, lo­cal res­i­dent John Hol­lands clearly in­formed the com­mit­tee of the above facts but his com­ments were ig­nored.

Fur­ther­more, a re­quest from res­i­dents to have the wood­land botan­i­cally sur­veyed as an al­ter­na­tive method of es­tab­lish­ing the an­cient­ness of the wood, was de­nied.

The per­cep­tion of res­i­dents is that SBDC did not want New­stead Wood to be des­ig­nated as an an­cient wood­land un­der any cir­cum­stances.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.