My parish colleague in Newport, Jackie Hawkins, wants people to send in objections to a proposed footpath diversion of Petticoat Lane, which will allow Sainsbury's supermarket to extend. She tells me,"This is a beautiful walk enjoyed by many people, as well as being a medieval footpath and very much a part of the history of not just Newport but the Island. Indeed it has been included in the Historic Environment Action Plan, which will form a part of the new Island Plan. It is also seen by Rights of Way as a portal into the countryside.
Petticoat Lane in recent years has already seen many changes detrimental to its character; any more changes and it will be beyond recognition.
Sainsburys would like to make the lane 87 metres longer. They try to justify this by reducing the steepness, but the vast majority of the people who regulary use the lane (many elderly. who live nearby) would rather it is left as it is, with the trees and the sound of birds singing. In fact it wouldn't be a lane any longer, it would be nothing more than a pavement no matter what planting they do. The way Sainsburys will maintain their planting is only for visual benefit and not for the benefit of the many species of birds that live in the lane at the present time. And this at a time when we are seeing a decline in what use to be very common birds such as sparrows, starlings and thrushes - all of which are regulary seen here.
Any divertedfootpath will run alongside the proposed extended Foxes Road. So what is now a safe and clean place away from traffic for children, older people and dog walkers to walk along will become dirty, smelly and noisy.
I urge anyone who cares about any of the issues that I have outlined, or any other that may be of concern to you that may be reasons why Sainsburys should not be granted this diversion order, to please write to Alex Russell, Isle of Wight Council, Rights of Way Officer, The Ventnor Costal Centre. Dudley Road, Ventnor. PO38 1EJ. Email - alex.russell@iow.gov.uk We have 28 days to send in our comments - closing date 16th January.
I would very much appreciate it if people would send me a copy of their comments at hawkinsjackie27@googlemail.com. I am also happy to talk to anyone who would like to ring me for more details on this application (Tel 530378).
If there are enough objections then this should result in a public enquiry, which would be held here on the Island and everyone who has written a letter would get the opportunity to speak if they so wished."
I heartily endorse Jackie's plea. This is a beautiful part of our County town that should not be allowed to be destroyed by the expansion plans of a major supermarket.
18 comments:
Incidentally, hear hear. No council with any respect for our history should allow this proposal, almost irrespective of the environmental issues. And yet those issues have an importance all their own: we are losing song-birds in the UK, for two major reasons - the loss of hedgerows, and the ever-increasing number of domestic cats let out all day to fend for themselves. We need to tackle the latter, but have no chance if we sacrifice the former. Sainsbury's is well able to look after itself: our diminishing countryside isn't.
And even if you leave all that aside: do we not care about our history? We list buildings and other man-made objects, but this thoroughfare has been with us for centuries; we have to keep it: it is crackers to have programmes like Time Team as popular as they are, and destroy our ancient landscape. Progress builds onthe past: genuine progress doesn't obliterate it. All power to cllr Hawkins.
Robert - much as I enjoy your contributions, your gernalisation about cats being let loose on their own is really too much. What is the evidence that (a) they are out more during the day and (b) that their kill rate is so significant as to be having a serious effect on the millions of birds.
This is catism of a high order and I for one feel that there should be comment moderation on this site to keep it under control!
I wouldn't want to be catist. How many birds they take is a moot point, but one sees them innocently lying beneath bird tables, with a calculating look in an otherwise dreamy eye. I think we know why they're there. It's the frying-pan lying next to their field-guide to British Birds that gives them away.
And I know they take field mice and bank voles, since I have seen the evidence; tried to protect a scurrying bank vole - attempted to hold a big black cat back with my walking-stick. With a practised flick, and a "yeah yeah yeah", he slithered around it and pounced. Promising bank vole career cut short. Now I don't wish to indulge in stereotyping here, but I can't help suspect this behaviour isn't unusual.
In short, keep your evil moggie indoors...
ah! Your true feelings are shown for what they really are - you are anti-cat. Dare you deny it? Why else would you describe an animal as 'evil' when it is just doing what it does - an end run around an old man with a walking stick to get to its prey.
If an animal does what its instincts tell it to do, does that make it 'evil'? It's very daily mail and C of E. Anyway, I'm sure that there are enough rodents and birds to go around. Doesn't stop them from pooping on my washing, and I've got two cats and 2 dogs!
Somehow, I sort of assumed you had cats.
Didn't say I didn't like them just because they're evil. I have kept pet rats in my time. People assume them to be evil, unclean, etc. Not true, of course. Loveable little critters. A very interesting conversation on the doorstep while canvassing (years ago) was interrupted when the cat sauntered indoors. Mid-point, the elector concerned squawked "oh my God, the gerbils!" and shot indoors. I made myself scarce, hoping he would assume, if the gerbils had all been dismembered while he was talking, that I was a Liberal.
I quite like cats in person, as it were; it's the numbers, and their habits in general, that worry me. Geoff has one, as I recall. So you may have more in common with him than you might have thought. It is on coincidences such as these that political alliances are built. Birds don't poop on my washing, by the way, but the sun shines on the righteous.
Who cares if an 'historic' footpath moves a tad? That's just progress. And your bird argument is plain daft. Most of the island is green, we have millions of trees for birds. Let Sainsbury's compete with the giant Tesco.
Progress my friend, there's far too little of it on this backward second rate island. Improve or die. Why do you think we've got into the mess we have with our schools? It's because the rest of the UK leaves us behind. Islanders are either too laid back to care or they're overners fearing all change that may 'ruin' the 50's time warp.
Since I've been saying much of this for years, I can hardly disagree with it now - for the IW, change creeps up on us, and we tend to get the worst of it; the latest example being the E Cowes residents who insist they want ASDA rather than Waitrose. A small thing, but so typical of the third-rate outlook so many here have.
But we still have things worth keeping, whose destruction would not qualify as "progress". OK, maybe it's not quite in the same league as turning Carisbrooke Castle into a multi-storey (although English Heritage seems to be doing its best to turn it into a theme-park, Got rot them) but hasn't enough been done to uglify Newport in recent years, eg the bus station and the tatty stores that front it, without diverting an ancient footpath? And song-birds are in steep decline; the reason why cats are a signficant problem for them is that they're in trouble already with the creeping loss of appropriate habitat - they don't just need trees, it's undisturbed hedgerow that's important.
The Chinese govt calls the destruction of old Beijing progress; and what's replacing it is characterless, ugly, anonymous development. This isn't China, and Newport isn't Beijing, but the principle holds: make sure it really IS progress before you embrace it too warmly.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Ilove the new bus station and the modern looking shops.
Take time to look at the Sainsburys store. It's a great modern building with a wing style, like an airport.
The new Tesco looks great too.
Carisbrooke cannot stay in a timewarp, nor can Newport if it hopes to compete with mainland stores.
Yes, now look, there's being positive about change and there's plain barking mad ... have you tried catching a bus at the Newport BS? Cold, dark, wet, with the concrete constructions whose purpose eludes me crumbling already. Modern looking shops; yes, they look modern, but they're still the bottom end of the market. And I was at Sainsbury's yesterday, which looks as good as a supermarket is ever going to look, so I'm with you there. More or less. Still: my point is that we don't catch up with mainland stores; we get the Matalans, the ASDAs .... and abortions like the Staples Building, which looks like the admin block of a concentration camp (no, I've never seen one). Even when we try to surge ahead, we still stay behind AND we get lousy development standards into the bargain. But there's a completely false dichotomy in all this; we can have progress and keep what's valuable, it's not an either/or. And someone has to make sure we don't just concrete over the lot to get to a year zero.
Sorry to infer you're barking mad, but.... the BUS STATION?
Eye of the beholder you will find beauty in you will. Yes, indeed.
You need to look beyond your espistological assumptions Robert and come to terms with your inner self, unless you are simply a phenomenalist. What say you?
Ps I am VERY drunk tonight....
Good. I think I'll join you. It's a hell of a lot easier than coming to terms with my inner self; though kind of you to assume I might have one.
We've all got inner selves, some are nicer than others though. Happy Christmas one and all.
I groan whenever I hear the words, Don't change it!.. Come on, moving a footpath will not affect anything, bushes grow back, birds will sing in other trees and bushes. Why do we resist change?? I want a better Sainsbury's and this small development wont change anything. Cllr Hawkins, please go and find something else to get yourself noticed - How about stopping the IW Council from selling off town-centre car parks; that will make a difference to the residents of Newport.
Do you? Why? Bushes grow back, do they... have you, I wonder, any idea how old much of our hedgerow is, how many centuries it took to provide the particular mix of plants and the animal life that depends on them? Birds will sing in other trees and bushes, you say. The land just a few yards from where I'm sitting now, the Niton landslip, has to remain undisturbed by man, which means it has to remain unstable - because the invertebrates that populate it can't survive otherwise, ie they need inherently unstable slopes. This house is half-derelict because of the landslip (and the lack of past action to stabilize it in part, while allowing the natural processes to continue over a large swathe of it). No one has yet done an environmental impact study on Petticoat Lane, so no one is in a position to say what species would be further endangered were it to be diverted (and "tidied up", manicured, maintained - & incidentally deprived of its character). The point is, there is a constant balancing act between maintaining as much of the natural environment as we can while not putting a stop to all progress: and the natural world by and large loses out, or has done in our recent past.
You either give a damn' about this sort of thing or you don't, but you might remember that the natural world actually includes us, we live in the environment we create, animal life does its best to survive and adapt, but if you want to live in a world dominated by the convenience of business and your desire for a better Sainsbury's, it may be your choice but it isn't mine; others will have to decide whether it's theirs. But don't think diverting this footpath won't change anything, because even leaving aside the historical and amenity importance of Petticoat Lane, it will. (By the way and [hooray!] finally, I don't know Cllr Hawkins, but I doubt that she's doing this to "get herself noticed"; it is just possible that she's doing it because she cares about the town she lives in. If more people did, we would maybe get the balanced development we need, rather than the crap we've had passing for town planning for so long.)
Robert, you ask for balance. Yes, that would be great. As most of the Island is countryside with an abundance of fields, trees and yes, Hedgerows, vast areas of AONB etc etc. We urbanists are definately on the minus side of any balance. When do we get our motorways, shopping Malls and decent supermarkets from all the national chains with their associated employment and earn a decent wage instead of the 'pocket money' many of us earn. I'm a born and bred Islander and I am fed up with living in a backward community just so a vocal minority can 'save the Island' So, no I wont go and live on the Mainland, I want my home to get into the 21st Century. So, yes Robert, I'd love some balance, how about you.
Recognizing I'm not making, er, progress, I'm going to shut up.
The diversion of Petticoat Lane is not just an environmental issue. There are 50 purpose built bungalows for the elderly alongside the lane and these people are going to have an extra 114 metres to walk everytime they want to go to the shops or the post office to draw their pension and then an extra 114m to walk back again.One resident is 91 years old another is blind and many others have ailments that makes walking difficult enough without having an extra 228m inflicted on them. These people
want to remain as independant as possible, they want to do their own shopping but being forced to walk further to do so will make it harder for them.
I most certaintly am not doing this to 'get myself noticed' I have neither the want nor need for such a thing, but I do care. Personally I think it is immoral and inhuman to inflict this on vunerable people and as their councillor it is my job to fight for them. Wasn't that why I was elected or maybe you prefer your councillors to do nothing.
Trouble is, the electorate tends not to know what it DOES want. Councillors are fine when they do what we want, and self-seeking when they do what someone else wants. I suppose t'was ever thus, but it does get tedious.
Insofar as this has been a debate (not a criticism of anyone, but a blog does have its limitations) it's been polarized between two extremes, which is why I felt I couldn't add any more to it. The only positive contribution I could make - aside from urging people not to jump always to the tired conclusion that councillors are fair game for abuse - would be to suggest that someone investigate alternatives from Sainsbury's point of view. If there are none, however, I would still say that you can't trade off the island's green fields, which are still there, against urban landscape: in other words, we may have a lot of hedges, fields and trees, but this idea that all the birds, mammals, insects and reptiles can just pack their bags and march up to St George's Down from Petticoat Lane is daft in itself: and even if it wasn't, is that what Newport people want for their town, unrelieved brick, concrete, managed spaces for a few specimen trees and municipal planting? If that really is the vision for the 21st Century, I shall take consolation in the fact that at least I won't have to live through too much more of it!
Post a Comment