New Forest plans similar to those of international figures we hate

In addition to the county authority reorganisations, the New Forest National Park Authority is reviewing its Local Plan and has been having open consultation sessions. So I toddled to Brockenhurst village hall and chatted to one of the three NPA planners.

Me: You have declared a climate emergency?

“Yes.”

Okay, what are you doing to increase the carbon absorption in the Forest? How are you measuring it?

“Oh, we are not and we don’t.”

Are you setting aside any areas to be completely untouched, to rewild naturally?

“No.”

Any plans to have any areas free of domestic pets, cats and dogs?

“We thought about it but no.”

The climate is already 1.3C hotter, the eight billion will soon be 11 billion, carbon use is increasing, what are your flood plans for 2.6?”

“Well none, we can’t as we haven’t been told to.”

The Forest is the most densely populated and most visited in the country; what are you doing to reduce the human impact?

“Oh, nothing.”

Right, um, so what are you planning for?

“Oh, more human development, industry, homes in the New Forest.”

Therefore it’s okay to ‘develop’ the great rainforests around the world?

“Oh.”

Question: Is our greed to extract money from designated wildlife areas really much different to the international figures we love to hate?

Peter Padfield

Holmsley