Whilst I agree that vagrancy isn't a high reflection of a sites biological importance and even that this isn't a particularly valuable site in terms of it's own biodiversity; might't I suggest Jeff that in playing devils advocate you have somewhat missed the point of what Chris is saying - fragmentation of habitat will threaten biodiversity along a corridor, even if the proposed site isn't home to those populations itself. Your argument would have been more viable if you hadn't cited 'the only interesting birds were gulls with regular Glaucous and the very occasional Iceland Gull', both vagrants, to then immediately go on to lament the loss of Corn Bunting and Tree Sparrow. These, as we all know, are both species which drastically suffered loss of habitat and subsequently declined, using this as reason to 'play devils advocate' against a petition that seeks to further limit the loss of habitat in the area, just further undermines your point.
There are species more susceptible to the effects of habitat fragmentation than others, and this is a voluntary petition, you don't have to sign it, but in my opinion the locally fragile (and/or important) populations of Willow tit, Barn owl, Lesser spotted woodpecker & Adders tongue fern won't thank you for it.
Might I also suggest that the reason your post didn't attract a 'larger reaction' is because it didn't warrant one, not because nobody see's the value in this site/petition. Here's the petition again - https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/help-preserve-our-local-meadows-1
I enjoyed reading the Chris's critique on my post. I must admit that my input was primarily that of a devil's advocate and was an attempt to raise the discussion of this kind of problem which is likely to increase over the coming years. The points I raised are likely to be similar to those which will be used by those who support this development.
The critical issue is to be able to demonstrate that a site has a significant importance to the wildlife of the surrounding areas. The important things to consider for any area are primarily the breeding species, then the regular winter visitors, and finally the regular passage migrants. However exciting they may be, the occurrence of vagrant species do not indicate that an area is of ecological importance.
I was a bit disappointed that my post did not attract a larger reaction, but this may be because there not be many birders in Stretford who use this site.
Thanks to those who have already signed the petition and I would encourage more to do so.
Jeff's post raises the point that we should be selective and focused in our opposition to planning proposals on green spaces, and this is area is less worthy of that support. If that has put any of you off signing the petition I would ask you to consider; - do you believe that by allowing this development to take place it will sway the planners and developers not to build elsewhere in the valley?. Indeed, the lack of opposition may merely encourage developers. - lets not judge an area by what it was and is today, lets judge it by what it is and may become. - the land in question does form part of the Mersey Valley green corridor and represent over 50% of the green-to-green passage over the M60 motorway, and for some key species I would suggest - the safest.
As the need for new land for development is now increasing, I feel that I cannot oppose the use of this area if it reduces the need to use more fragile areas.
This is not a long-standing green area. In the 1980s most of this area was a landfill site where the only interesting birds were gulls with regular Glaucous and the very occasional Iceland Gull. The small remaining area was primarily pasture for horses with Tree Sparrows and Corn Buntings, both of which have long vanished from this area. Subsequently it has never been better than a marginal habitat for all but the commonest breeding birds. The occasional occurrence of rare birds is of little importance. At least here there remains nearby areas to visit such as Urmston Meadows which retains a high potential for finding interesting birds if one can negotiate the Himalayan balsam in the summer.
The concept of this area being a corridor for wildlife ignores the area to the south of the motorway which includes Stretford sewage works. This is unlikely ever to be developed because of the substantial risk of flooding.
It will never be possible to protect all places under threat of development. The real areas to concentrate on are where there are long-standing environments which are under threat. An example of this is that most of Carrington Moss, much of which could well disappear under housing in the next thirty years. Much of this is area is already intensively farmed and would be no significant loss to the regional bird populations. Some local breeding birds would disappear such as Whitethroat, Partridge and Skylark. However there are small areas of historic value (primarily woodland sites) which could possibly be protected if enough interest were raised.
There always remains the choice of which areas to attempt to protect, and I would always choose those where there was a possibility of success.
-- Edited by Jeff Clarke on Tuesday 4th of July 2017 11:52:01 PM
We all should get behind this and try to stop another area of breathing green space be suffocated by a cap of concrete. I have signed, the petition is in its infancy but if we all sign then maybe our voices will be listened to.
I have been made aware that there are plans afoot to build Industrial Units / Warehousing on Stretford Meadows. This is a landscaped former tip now a great habitat for birds. Birds seen last year included Great Grey Shrike, Grasshopper Warbler, Spotted Flycatcher, Stonechat to name but a few. But more importantly it forms a key link in the Mersey Valley Green corridor to allow wildlife to move up and down the valley.
Stephen Adshead, a local councillor, is running a petition in order to discourage any further thought of this project.
I do not know the full details of the proposals but the link below outlines the issue. I cannot see this being good for wildlife or the local community. On that basis I would encourage you to sign the petition .... address below provides a background and the petition.
