Monday, 17 March 2014
Below is what SCC call a "woodland improvement" plan including housing development (I've shaded it grey, they deceivingly coloured it green) Retail development and clean and tidy paths.
I've added/ highlighted some key points and truths here.
"Socially Conscious Capital". Rock Fielding-Mellen and his pals must have thought they were onto a winner when they came up with that name. But like most things that sound too good to be true, so is SCC.
SCC's socially conscious credentials arise from anything but foundations of rock. Mr Mellen (who prefers to be called Rock Fielding), in his day job as a member of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, has vigorously opposed the London Living Wage, which seeks to guarantee just what it says for the capital’s poorest workers. Supporters of the Living Wage include Boris Johnson and most London-based MPs, yet Rock couldn't find it in his heart to go along with the concept of paying the poor a bit more.
Rock has recently demonstrated further the depth of his social consciousness by angrily telling the residents of a Scottish village to stop interfering with his family's plans. The village of Longniddry is on an estate belonging to his family. Not content with owning the village and surrounding countryside, they want to increase their fortune by building a large housing estate on meadowland. The villagers understandably made their opposition clear in Rock's 'consultation'. However, despite receiving their clear response, Mellen was reported in the Edinburgh Evening News as saying: "The estate will not be dictated to by the village".
Innocent new arrivals at SCC's website would hardly guess that the main figure behind it had such haughty attitudes. SCC's site oozes what they must believe to be charm.
Their first (and only) project is called Racecourse Plantations - their new name for what began as 'Belmore Park' nearly 4 years ago.
Faced with the challenge of selling a thoroughly discredited concept to a savvy local population, SCC have followed in Gail Mayhew's footsteps and sought to divert attention from what they want to do onto what they think people will like. And so, rather than admit that they want to build as many houses as they can get away with on the woods, in order to make as much money as possible, they twist the truth inside out, like this:
"At Racecourse Plantations in Thorpe, we want to open up at least 150 acres of privately owned commercial forestry plantations as an accessible, family friendly woodland, recreational resource and haven for wildlife - for the benefit of the community and owned by the community"
What a lovely thing to want to do! The only catch is: "To achieve this, we are proposing a development on the least sensitive areas of the site, which comprises no more than 25% of the area. We can now announce that we are proposing a total of 380 quality homes in a woodland setting"
Why do they need to build around £130million worth of houses, you might ask. The reason; so that they can set aside enough money to create such wonderful facilities as visitor centres, shops, cafes, formal and informal play areas, car parks and access roads, and probably even talking fibreglass trees that tell children the names of the birds that used to live there. And none of this comes cheap.
It is in SCC’s interests to make it seem that a lot of money would need spending to make the remainder of the woods fit for human presence, in order to justify building so many houses. If they were to admit that all the woods need in order to remain a haven for wildlife and 'family friendly' is improvement to existing paths and perhaps some tree safety work here and there, they'd find it hard to justify building anything: it isn’t as if the owners couldn’t fund such works themselves, out of the profits from sustainable forestry.
This is perhaps the most exasperating aspect of the whole spiel. SCC (like their predecessors) claim that in order to provide Norwich with continued enjoyment of the woodland they have enjoyed for generations, they need to raise money by building a few hundred houses. You'd think these people were like the rest of us apart from having through fate found themselves landed with 200 acres of woodland they can't afford to keep. Anyone who attended the owners' series of exhibitions in 2010 would certainly have thought this, because it is what they told us. But the truth is very different.
Their family is one of the wealthiest in East Anglia. They own the 5000 acre Walsingham Estate, half a dozen villages and the famous Walsingham Abbey. They also own, between them, other large woodlands in Norfolk, properties in London, Norwich and abroad. If SCC's opening claim were true, ie: that they WANT to let the people of Norwich have a beautiful, wildlife-rich woodland with free access in perpetuity, they could simply make it happen. They would hardly notice the difference on their annual balance sheets. And they actually would have done something worthy of praise.
But these people want nothing other than to make yet more easy money, and if that means giving some of the woodland to the community in order to secure planning permission for building on part of it, they'll grudgingly do that. SCC and their fancy PR consultants can twist words as much as they like but it won't alter reality.
Thorpe Woods will not benefit form having hundreds of houses built in them or from the remainder being sanitised. They are a superb ecological asset and will become even more important for their biodiversity as the march of 'progress' covers every field surrounding the city with bricks and tarmac. Let's not be fooled by Selfish, Crafty Capitalists.
Wednesday, 5 March 2014
SCC's New claimsIn the last few days Socially Conscious Capital (SCC) have re-emerged with
further claims. These they hope will convince all that making a quick buck
by developing an unwanted and unnecessary housing estate over
large areas of this much loved County Wildlife Site is the best future for Thorpe Woodlands.
Last November they tried to convince us that the best way of preserving and
protecting this wood was for them to be allowed to build over many acres of it
(see Rock's Roadshow hits town). However, it is hard
to convince people that such a proposal can be anything other than nonsense when
your plans are opposed not only by the overwhelming majority of local people, as
demonstrated in the response to Broadland District Council's
consultation (in which over 99% of the record-breaking 2440 people who
responded opposed any development), but also by local councillors and conservation
bodies such as the Norfolk Wildlife Trust, RSPB, Campaign to protect Rural
England, Natural England and The Norwich Society.
Therefore SCC’s latest ploy is to claim that some of these bodies have now
seen the light and don’t oppose their plans.
SCC claim that Natural England “have not opposed our proposals” and have
told them their development plans are a “good start”. Happily this is far from the truth.
Natural England has made clear their position as set out in their most recent
"Natural England supports the identification of Thorpe
Woodlands as an area of multi functional open space for wildlife and recreation.
It should not be taken forward as a development allocation in the AAP."
On the 26th February we spoke to Natural England who have confirmed that they
continue to stand by the above statement and have written a “strongly worded
letter” to SCC in respect of the edited comments attributed to Natural England
on SCC’s website. We understand that SCC have now apologised to Natural England
and has retracted their statements.
SCC also claims that The Norwich Society is thawing; but once again the
truth is very different. The Norwich Society has made it clear that: "Thorpe Woodlands
are not suitable for residential development: this is the unanimous view of the
The Chair of the Norwich Society was happy to confirm that they continue to support
the protection of the woods in their entirety and provided us with a copy of a letter
they had sent to the Chairman of Broadlands Planning committee which states:
"The Trustees of the Norwich Society join me to express their deep concern about
plans to build new housing on the three pieces of woodland known collectively as
Thorpe Woodlands. They are popular quiet, green areas
close to dense population. It is essential that this green lung remains to
refresh the citizens of surrounding Thorpe, Thorpe End and Dussindale. It should
be an oasis in the proposed development Growth Triangle of north-east
Norwich.Any roads should be carefully planned to skirt all three woods."
Last but not least...
SCC also claim that Norfolk County Council’s Green Infrastructure Co-ordinator Dr David White is sympathetic to the idea of building a housing estate on a County Wildlife Site. SCC state that Dr White thinks there may be "a case could be made for permitting some development to facilitate the long-term recreational use of the remaining parts of the site". This quote is taken out ofthe context of a report issued by Dr White at the end of last year, in which he in factconcludes that:
Dr David Whites' actual conclusions
4.1 Having scrutinised the submitted documents and the other available
information, I conclude that large-scale housing development in the Thorpe
Woodlands would not be appropriate as the ecological impacts would be too great.
However without detail on proposed housing numbers/area, I remain to be
convinced that some small-scale housing would be appropriate either. This is
• the ecological value of the site (CWS standard) and importance of the site for
• the fact that developing on a CWS would be contrary to local and national
policy and that there would be a real danger of undermining the CWS system that
has been so beneficial in protecting the most important wildlife sites in a
• the question as to if it would actually be physically possible to compensate
for the loss of ecological connectivity in any meaningful way (as opposed to
compensation for loss of, or adverse impacts on, within-site habitats); and
• the uncertainty of the benefits of using the approach of building some houses
to secure informal public access when other options with potentially fewer
adverse impacts seem to be available and could be explored in greater detail.
4.2 The benefit of having the site for public access in the Growth Triangle is
obvious, but at this stage and based on the documents submitted, I would
hesitate to conclude that building on part of the site is the best way of
So despite SCC's best efforts, the truth is, that in addition to the 2440 local people who opposed any development...
Norfolk Wildlife Trust states that: "In our view Racecourse Plantation and
Belmore and Browns Plantations should be retained in their entirety as key
biodiversity assets and part of the critical natural capital, within the growth
triangle and no part of this woodland should be zoned for development".
The RSPB’s view is "Thorpe Woodlands should be retained as open space and
as a key area in the Growth Triangle’s green infrastructure provision. We are
surprised that housing development is even being considered for this site".
CPRE Norfolk "supports the Friends of Thorpe Woodlands and their campaign to
protect Racecourse Plantation, and adjacent woodland from development".
Dr David White Norfolk County council concludes that "large-scale housing
development in the Thorpe Woodlands would not be appropriate as the ecological
impacts would be too great. However without detail on proposed housing
numbers/area, I remain to be convinced that some small-scale housing would be
The Norwich Society is "of the opinion that Thorpe Woodlands are not suitable
for residential development".
So it appears that SCC are simply twisting words to
suit their preferred meaning. Rather than Natural England and other bodies seeing the
benefits of building over a much loved woodland County Wildlife Site they are in
fact as opposed to it as ever and like the local people who love it realise the
importance of preserving it for future generations.