BASTARD! - Money triumphs over democracy and care for the planet again.

I lived in a small village near a reservoir which is an important bird reserve.  The local farmers decided to surround the reservoir with a rally track, with speedboat racing on the water.  One of the villagers took a bribe of tens of thousands of pounds to promote the scheme locally, like a wee version of the Trump debacle.   The council didn't pay much attention to the obvious environmental damage that the development would have caused, but other legal tactics were more successful.  

First it is important to have the council recognise each and every 'right of way' that crosses the development, as these have to be kept accessible. In Scotland a right of way is any route between two public places that has been used without permission for twenty years.  We just asked the local pensioners if they ever walked between the village and places on the other side of the development,

http://www.scotways.com/faqs/detail.php?catid=6#87

We had individual trees on the proposed development were protected by Tree Preservation Orders, scuppering the some of the proposed housing.  We should have actually put a TPO on the groups of trees but we were unaware that we could ( also, hedgerows can be protected under different legislation).

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/tposguide

Some unprotected trees were marked 'Spiked'.  Whether the trees were actually spiked or not is irrelevant as it is perfectly safe to cut down such trees without a chainsaw, so this tactic really only works in large woods.  Psychologically though, it is an early indication to a developer of the seriousness of public opposition.  It is also possible to plant a tree and immediately have a TPO put on it - bear in mind the relevant council committee also opposes the development. 

Although some of those tactics should have already been pursued, this is still only 'outline planning permission'.  The greatest threat to Trumps development may be lack of financing, but we can't rely on that since the super-rich, like the truly poor, never feel recessions.  

Protecting a sand-dune is obviously more challenging than protecting a forest. Conversely, protecting a golf-course and it's clientelle is impossible.  The development can easily be made to fail after the damage has been done. The tricky thing now is to stop the damage beforehand, but there are obvious assets available to any campaign of resistance.

One local, Mike Forbes, has refused to sell up to Trump, and is quoted as saying he would rather give his land away to gypsies than sell out to Trump.  Now, that could easily be interpreted as offensive to the Roma, but I see no reason to doubt the mans sincerity.  He was smart enough to predict that the recent economic shannanigans would force this decision through.  He could have enriched himself like most of the locals have and yet .  He could be the rock to build a fortress upon.

It would be good to know exactly what property Trump already owns in the UK.  I think this is the obvious one if it really is his:

Menie Sporting Estate
North of Balmedie
Aberdeenshire
Scotland
AB23 8YE
UK
Tel :      +44 (0) 1358 742885 / 743092
Fax :      +44 (0) 1358 742914
    
Email :      info@meniehouse.com
Website :      www.meniehouse.com

Is it a crime to book into a hotel and then cancel?   It sounds so irresistable, especially with all the shooting.

These 900 holiday homes - are they going to be timeshare, short term lets or are people going to be pernament residents? 

If there is pernament residents living in these houses, then what contribution is Trump going to make to the local community, surely this would put more burden on the infrastructure around Aberdeen, schools, road traffic, surgeries,... which is currently avoided through the word 'holiday'! as I am sure other builders would be forced to contribute in this way. (could anybody confirm?)  

On another point the main oil terminal that feeds the whole of Britains gas and oil network is located just north of the proposed site and has been managed to protect the local enviornment. - quite a derelict place not full of tourists but still a possibility that the enviornment could be managed successfully. Does anybody know if such proposals have been made?   

This is unbelievable. It is really outrageous. What's the point of having protection legally imposed on land  if it is worth nothing!? We cannot trust this government if it really can be sold like this. This is a truly sad day...

 i think with a sustained campaign of resistance maybe we could fuck this project

what rats the snp are...

As far as I am aware this golf course will not kill anybody, unless some unfortunate gets hit with a golf ball. It seems totally ludicrous that the green movement opposes this golf course because it threatens some sand dunes. Who gives a shite about sand dunes? How many people visit sand dunes? And why would they visit sand dunes? The environmental movement is losing all sense of direction. See for example the latest controversy over clean coal. They oppose it because they believe that clean coal will contribute to destroying the environment even though they fail to produce the scienctific facts. Closing down a nuclear power station I fully understand and support, but closing down a clean coal power station makes absolutely no sense whatsover. I am beginning to really loath and despise the environmental movement with its dogma and near religious mania. Does human activity actually create climate change? I have not seen one shread of evidence to suggest to human activity causes climate change. Enviromentalism is another method for developed nations and the european union to interfere in the sovereignity of developing nations. It is a method of ensuring through economic and political pressure that developing nations don't industralize their way out of poverty and develope into economic competitors. Maggie Thatcher was the first liar to support research into the lie that human activity causes climate change because she wanting to destroy the coal industry and replace it with nuclear, and now that lie is so successful that now the right and left are now trying to control our lives and thoughts with this lie.

To above Anon.

You miss the point. "Who gives a shite about sand dunes? How many people visit sand dunes? And why would they visit sand dunes?" They are important in themselves. Not because people visit them but because they are unique and have formed over thousands of years. They are not ours, or Trumps, to destroy.

I love this "Margaret Thatcher invented climate change to close the mines" nonsense from Anonymous. Where is it coming from? My money's on E.On or Drax's PR depts...

Remember the SNP's Alex Salmond had a nice cosy chat with Trumps guys a wee while ago, just after the idea was thrown out by the council - no rats to smell there then,

Remember it when elections come round again.

Hey CH the reasons behind Margaret Thatchers climate policies are well documented, not just rubbish.

Back in 1979 the Conservative Party wanted a large UK nuclear power industry for another reason. That industry’s large nuclear processing facilities were required for the UK’s nuclear weapons programme and the opposition Labour Party was then opposing the Conservative Party’s plans to upgrade the UK’s nuclear deterrent with Trident missiles and submarines. Unfortunately, the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents had damaged public confidence in nuclear technology. Then, privatisation of the UK’s electricity supply industry exposed the secret that UK nuclear electricity cost four times more than UK coal-fired electricity. Global warming became the only remaining excuse for the unpopular nuclear power facilities needed for nuclear weapons. Mrs Thatcher had to be seen to spend money at home if her international campaign was to be credible, the mines closing was a consequence of this.

Early in her global warming campaign - and at her personal instigation - the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research was established, and the science and engineering research councils were encouraged to place priority in funding climate-related research. This cost nothing because the UK’s total research budget was not increased; indeed, it fell because of cuts elsewhere. But the Hadley Centre sustained its importance and is now the operating agency for the IPCC’s scientific working group. Most scientists’ work depends on funds fully or partly provided by governments. Also, all scientists compete to obtain their share of this limited resource. Available research funds were shrinking, and global warming had become the ‘scientific’ issue of most interest to governments. Hence, any case for funding support tended to include reference to global warming whenever possible. Much science in many fields may be conducted under the guise of a relationship to global warming. Activities which have obtained funds by this method include biology, meteorology, computer science, physics, chemistry, climatology, oceanography, civil engineering, process engineering, forestry, astronomy, and several other disciplines. Now, funds for this work are provided to most UK Universities and several commercial research establishments.

Much peer pressure deters scientists from damaging potential sources of research funds. There is especial pressure - loss of future career - to avoid being the first to proclaim the scientific truth of global warming and thus damage the research funding of colleagues. But failure to proclaim the scientific truth does not mean that many scientists believe in the global warming hypothesis. In 1992 - at the height of the global warming scare - Greenpeace International conducted a survey of the world’s 400 leading climatologists. Greenpeace had hoped to publicise the results of that survey in the run-up to the Rio summit, but when they completed the survey, they gave very little publicity to its results. In response to the survey, only 15 climatologists were willing to say they believed in global warming, although all climatologists rely on it for their employment. Also, the Leipzig Declaration disputes the IPCC assertions about man-made global warming. It was drafted following the Leipzig Climate Conference in November 1995 and has been signed by over 1,500 scientists from around the world.

The global warming issue is political. It induced the ‘Earth Summit’ that was attended by several Heads of State in Rio de Janeiro during June 1992 and is the reason for the Kyoto Summit in Japan in December 1997. Governments have a variety of motives for interest in global warming. Each government has its own special interests in global warming but, in all cases, the motives relate to economic policies. In general, the USA fears loss of economic power to other nations while this is desired by those other nations. Universal adoption of ‘carbon taxes’, or other universal proportionate reductions in industrial activity, would provide relative benefit to the other nations. Unfortunately, if a few nations adopted the changes they would increase their manufacturing, transportation and energy costs and thus lose economic competitiveness and industrial activity to all other nations. Developing nations cannot afford technological and economic advances that would benefit them and also reduce their increases to CO2 emissions as they develop, so they are seeking gifted technology transfers and economic aid from developed countries.

an Irish minister of the DUP party ( apologies I forget his name ) recently addressed the house of lords on the issue of climate change and the policy of introducing green taxes without conclusive scientific evidence that climate change is being accelrated by man, his motivation was however the taxation of tankers and aircraft. but the point remains; climate change has been a reality for over 11,000 years it is nothing new. It is only the fact that the side effects of climate change are damaging to the economy and capatalism that it becomes an issue, much like Maggie's nuclear agenda.   

All that said I still don't support Trumps golf course move, and suspect most of the profit will be filtered into Trumps pockets and not benefit the people of Aberdeen or Scotland as the current oil industry in Aberdeen also fails to do.

Linman.

You are wrong on so many points it's hard to know where to start. The main thing is, as long as your argument is, none of this has any bearing at all on the results of the science.

• You think that there's a vast conspiracy of silence on behalf of scientists so they don't rock the boat. Do you know how many people that would take to falsify their published results?
• Your timeline is backwards (nuclear energy privatised under Thatcher? Really?)
• You attach significance to trivial events nearly 20 years ago, ignoring the last 2 decades of research and political inertia
• You expect me view the word of a DUP MP as more significant than that of the IPCC
• You think a low response to a survey is significant.

No offense but I really hate this kind of ill-formed thinking, making connections between things that aren't connected does not amount to an argument, it's story telling. Fun and all but keep it out of science and politics, please.

• You think that there's a vast conspiracy of silence on behalf of scientists so they don't rock the boat. Do you know how many people that would take to falsify their published results

Nobody is saying results are falsified or there is some kind of conspiracy! Scientists just gave their research a link to global warming in order to receive funding grants and reported accordingly their findings.

• Your timeline is backwards (nuclear energy privatised under Thatcher? Really?)

Electricity companies, E-l-e-c-t-r-i-c-t-y. not nuclear! yeah lets get some nuclear plants in order to build nukes, but lets not the government control them, lets privatise them! E-l-e-c-t-r-i-c-t-y..Dah!!

• You attach significance to trivial events nearly 20 years ago, ignoring the last 2 decades of research and political inertia

Um what! 20 years is a very short time in the world of global politics. show what evidience has been developed to prove man causes global warming or accelerate the causes. Please.  

• You expect me view the word of a DUP MP as more significant than that of the IPCC

Can't be bothered even going into the representation and etcc... no just cant./.

• You think a low response to a survey is significant.

A low response to a survey often indicates no one is moved or feels the need to reply to it - a mute point maybe? 

Thanks for your comments I look forward to seeing this evidence.

"show what evidience has been developed to prove man causes global warming or accelerate the causes. Please. "

Gladly. IPCC 4th Assessment Report

"Nobody is saying results are falsified or there is some kind of conspiracy! Scientists just gave their research a link to global warming in order to receive funding grants and reported accordingly their findings"

Emphasis added. You are contradicting yourself. You can't publish findings without results to back them up. Any published findings not backed up by results would have been found out as false.

The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (N-IPCC - not to be confused with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC) has been published by the Heartland Institute.

It has been described as the most complete, up-to-date, authoritative summary of peer-reviewed critical positions with respect to “Anthropogenic Global Warming”.

The report is titled Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate

While AR4 is an impressive document, it is far from being a reliable reference work on some of the most important aspects of climate change science and policy. It is marred by errors and misstatements, ignores scientific data that were available but were inconsistent with the authors’ pre-conceived conclusions, and has already been contradicted in important parts by research published since May 2006, the IPCC’s cut-off date.

In general, the IPCC fails to consider important scientific issues, several of which would upset its major conclusion – that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” (emphasis in the original).

The IPCC does not apply generally accepted methodologies to determine what fraction of current warming is natural, or how much is caused by the rise in greenhouse (GH) gases. A comparison of ‘fingerprints’ from best available observations with the results of state-of-the-art GH models leads to the conclusion that the (human-caused) GH contribution is minor. This fingerprint evidence, though available, was ignored by the IPCC.

The following is taken from the report’s Conclusions:

The extent of the modern warming – the subject of the first question – appears to be less than is claimed by the IPCC and in the popular media. We have documented shortcomings of surface data, affected by urban heat islands and by the poor distribution of land-based observing stations.

(…)

This report shows conclusively that the human greenhouse gas contribution to current warming is insignificant. Our argument is based on the well established and generally agreed-to ‘fingerprint’ method. Using data published by the IPCC and further elaborated in the U.S.-sponsored CCSP report, we have shown that observed temperature trend patterns disagree sharply with those calculated from greenhouse models.

And finally, this statement on Policy Implications:

Our findings, if sustained, point to natural causes and a moderate warming trend with beneficial effects for humanity and wildlife. This has obvious policy implications: Schemes proposed for controlling CO2 emissions, including the Kyoto Protocol, proposals in the U.S. for federal and state actions, and proposals for a successor international treaty to Kyoto, are unnecessary, would be ineffective if implemented, and would waste resources that can better be applied to genuine societal problems [Singer, Revelle and Starr 1991].

Even if a substantial part of global warming were due to greenhouse gases – and it is not – any control efforts currently contemplated would give only feeble results. For example, the Kyoto Protocol – even if punctiliously observed by all participating nations – would decrease calculated future temperatures by only 0.02 degrees C by 2050, an undetectable amount.

In conclusion, this NIPCC report falsifies the principal IPCC conclusion that the reported warming (since 1979) is very likely caused by the human emission of greenhouse gases. In other words, increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for current warming. Policies adopted and called for in the name of ‘fighting global warming’ are unnecessary.

 

So CH I still await conclusive proof that Humankind cause or accelerate 'global warming' - a natural occurence which existed before man! 

The Heartland Institute is the "think" tank setup by tobacco companies to delay action on lung cancer and smoking. In recent years it has been heavily funded by Exxon to, guess what, delay action on global warming.

So how have they done that?

"The New York Times reports that while the Heartland conference 'was largely framed around science ... when an organizer made an announcement asking all of the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so.' [...]

The Heartland Institute offered "$1,000 to those willing to give a talk," and "a free weekend at the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan, including travel costs, to all elected officials wanting to attend,"'

That's your NIPCC, a worthless, science-less PR exercise funded by oil money.

"That's your NIPCC, a worthless, science-less PR exercise funded by oil money."

"What's your IPCC - sponsered by a cash strapped worthless Government with a tax agenda - funded by oil money.

I can't see how one group are better than the other!? surely they both act in their own self interest? 

All evidence is not of equal value.

The IPCC is a democractic, transparent, scientific body that produces comprehensive, exhaustive and respected summaries of the whole state of knowledge on the climate. Each sentence of its reports has been subject to unprecedented scrutiny from the powerful vested interests of governments and the oil industry. Its conclusions have withstood this. That's how science works.

The other is a fringe of a fringe that operates secretively, produces very little work to fit a predefined conclusion based on a highly selective and restricted cherry picking of evidence. That's how corporate-backed, agenda-driven think tanks work.

Presented with the scientific evidence you asked for, you ignore it and make contrarian, spurious arguments disconnected from reason, logic or common sense.

Like I said, I think you are trolling. I also note that you have taken this way off the topic of the Menie development. I consider this discussion closed.

Could we please stick to the topic please. I've heard these arguments before. But just to comment on the debate:

I would agree with CH on the simple foundation that nobody really likes to live in a polluted world, regardless of whether or not that has an impact on climate change. I understand Anonymous' take on the topic and he/she is entitled to it. As always, I do wonder what kind of conclusion you end up with when you affirm that climate change is not due to man. Surely, you don't want to see a world with an increasing number of factories and other polluting facilities. I think it's fair enough to look for solutions that can offer developing countries a more satisfying way of living in a CLEANER way. Why would you want to argue against that?! I think fear is the motivating factor here. It's so much more satisfying to hide your inactivity behind statements like "But think of the third-world countries." Because that's bullshit; if we did, we would already have been doing research in cleaner energies etc. to save lives affected by POLLUTION, not climate change. There's a whole focus on climate change when in fact, there were problems before that we didn't link to climate change but definitely to industrialization. Do i need to remind anyone of Bophal?

Also, it's important to just choose your side here. if some scientists say climate change is "influenced" by man, you can decide whether you want to nitpick about the percentage of responsibility we have in it or you can decide that you want to do everything you can to make that percentage be zero... why go look for those scientists that say it's a hoax. it is important to be critical, not to be skeptical when it comes to saving your environment. Anonymous, whoever you are, you must have seen the real evidence of the damage done by our way of living. you can't pretend that this doesn't matter since it doesn't affect climate change.

This Donald Trump project is a complicated issue since the council voted in favour. local population seems (for the majority) to be in favour of it but i don't have the numbers. i would like to know more about that. also, i would like to know more about scottish legislation when it comes to foreign investments and the impact of recreational development on sites of specific scientific interest. if this is a protected site how can the council override overall environmental protection. i would like to point out the shell to sea action in Rossport, Ireland and the similarities as well as what happened on Eigg.

Foreign developers are a pest. the only good thing i can see in this thing, as opposed to companies like shell, is that donald trump does have a public profile. at least, you can target SOMEBODY. but it might be hard to rally locals behind an action to save the coast from trump. there is the economic argument (although, here, i'm not sure which benefits the locals will eventually reap from it) behind the scheme and the general atmosphere of the thing already done when it is in fact just starting now. developers create this dynamic. the thing seems settled when in fact, only the financial transactions have taken place but again, i don't know what the evolution of the project is. have they started the works yet? it might be a good idea to have a local source of feedback about the whole thing. i think mike forbes is a key figure here. anyway, i wish to hear more about this and there should definitely be a more comprehensive article about this so people know more about the scheme. i think it's horrible for several reasons, because i find it hard to believe donald trump cares for the local people, the environment or anything at all, actually, with the exception of money-making and that is enough to distrust the whole plan. oh perhaps he does like golf. but does scotland need more golf courses?

It is true that peturbations in global climate are caused by natural phenomenon, such as:

Earth-sun geometry (Orbital eccentricity, axial obliquity and precession)

Cariation in Sunspots

Volcanic eruptions

El Nino events

Ocean circulation patterns

Sources and sinks of greenhouse gases 

These have been shown to be responsible for the alternating recorded periods of  warming and cooling in the earth´s history.

However these observed changes in natural phenomon are not consistent with the observed temperature increase since the 1800´s. The blue line on the graph is the effect of natural phenomenon alone observed in different countries. The Pink line is natural phenomenon coupled with anthropogenic forcings (green house gas emissions). The black line is observed (recorded) data.

As you can see, only when anthropogenic emissions are included in a graphical analysis along with natural phenomen (pink), does the data match up to the observed trend (black line)

.

This is the kind of graph the IPCC uses to deduce that recent global  environmental change is attributable to humans. 

I´m surprised that this theory is still being treated with skepticism! It´s based on the same scientific methodology as is used to prove that gravity exists.. Interesting that other scientific findings are not greeted with the same amount of controversy! 

Arguments about climate change are irrelevant to the news article.  You don't have to believe in climate change to know any development of a protected Site of Special Scientific Interest is damaging, not only to our environment but to science. Once the scientists stop calling for the Menie dunes to be protected then sell them to Donald Toupe.  Until then, in this corrupted country, those of us who oppose this need to discuss how to oppose it, not why.


"what rats the snp are..."
IMHO the SNP can hardly be called rats.  They ran on a pro-business agenda and the Greens refused to join them in government so the SNP owe them little. This isn't even the worst policy of the new government, but it doesn't do them credit and it does present us with an opportunity to scupper a few fortunes at once. 


"How many people visit sand dunes? And why would they visit sand dunes?"
Most SSSI's are of scientific interest precisely because few people visit them.  All the SSSIs I've visited have been worth the visit but I do so rarely, carefully, without treading too deeply. I am not a scientist, so I can't say why this location has been deemed scientifically important.  I know scientists have deemed it important to conserve, and I know politicians of all parties have succumbed to the lure of filthy lucre over national and human decency.

So, ignore the misdirection. Read back the original news article and assuming you can't be healthy eating only dollars, how do we stop this from happening?

"i think mike forbes is a key figure here. "

I agree. There will be other key figures too but Mike is most visible.  Have none of us idiots taken the time to write or visit him yet or are we happier on safe ground arguing about global warming?  Also, think to yourself - and try not to think as you are typing online- what if Mike sold out? What tactics and strategy would sink this deal-with-the-devil ?

Two days ago, I found out on the website of the NESER (North East Scotland Economic Research:http://www.neser.org.uk/datasheet.cfm?datasheetid=58 ) that Aberdeenshire had in April 2008 the lowest unemployment rate of Scotland's 32 local authority areas with 0.8 %! This rate is well below UK rates. I am not suggesting that this should urge Trump to go invest in other areas of Scotland. It suggests however that the economic argument raised so many times by defenders of the Trump plan is completely unfounded in fact and is simply recycled by the media. This is not unusual but it made me very angry to find this fact one click away when everybody is arguing about it without actually taking the time (precisely 1 minute) to look at the facts. I also want to point out that this is not the first golf course in Aberdeenshire. I give you here the list I found on UK-golf:
  Course Name Town Country (1) Auchmill Golf Club Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire Scotland (2) Balnagask Golf Course Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire Scotland (3) Bon Accord Municipal Golf Club Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire Scotland (4) Caledonian Golf Club Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire Scotland (5) Deeside Golf Club Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire Scotland (6) Hazlehead Golf Course Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire Scotland (7) King's Links Golf Course Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire Scotland (8) Murcar Links Golf Club Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire Scotland (9) Nigg Bay Golf Club Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire Scotland (10) Northern Golf Club Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire Scotland (11) Royal Aberdeen Golf Club Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire Scotland The conclusion I draw from the facts I find is simple: 1)There is no need for more golf courses in Aberdeenshire since it already has them. To the contrary, I would say that there is an increasing need to protect the environment from more recreational developments that are not sustainable and 2) the economic argument is inaccurate and false. I'm disappointed but not surprised by the attitude of the Scottish government on this case. But why exactly should the final verdict of the inquiry be pronounced by the secretary of finance? Why not the person in charge of the environment? The whole case is biased and steeped in financial concerns rather than environmental ones. Is this the price of independence?

It would be great to see more people react to this and write what they know. Sending a card or a letter to Mike Forbes is always a good idea. It's important that he doesn't feel like there is no support or that he's alone in his opposition to Trump. We need to resist this plan. Sign petitions and write to MPs. You can also object to the application on the website of the Scottish government. Be considerate in how you phrase things. As in all things political, language seems to matter more than fact. There is a link to the application on the website of Menie Scotland. I don't know if the application has been definitely approved (It's all very murky. Just because the politicians have approved it doesn't mean that the plan has been legally approved - that's the usual trap. The media will focus on the politicians.) If you know more about this, enlighten me and others :-) Everybody has an opinion about this but we have not been informed enough. It doesn't matter whether you're Scottish or not, this is just one more example of an on-going abuse of our environment and people by the wealthy and the politicians who want to attract investors to fuel their own reputations.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/db87c344-bff0-11dd-9222-0000779fd18c.html

Looks like Trump if Trump comes to Scotland he'll be looking for work himself.

The Scottish Wildlife Trust is closely following this case and has good information/links to up to date documents, on its website.

See,

http://www.swt.org.uk/Trump-Development/

Here is an extract from a written document published by conservation bodies in response to the Golf Course proposed by Trump and his cronies. It outlines the specific and unique ecological value of the site, which led it to be classified for legal puroposes as a site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and therefore of supposedly protected status.

The Value of Menie – habitats, and some projected impacts

5.1 The EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) (core document (F)2) lists Annex 1 habitats,
which are rare and in need of protection, of which the most important are Priority
Annex 1 Habitats. The ES (core document (G)3 Vol 2: Appendix 7.1, Table A7-1.1)
makes it clear that five Annex 1 habitats, of which three (shown by an asterisk in the
list below) are Priority Habitats, are found here in substantial quantity, as follows:

2120 White Dunes (mobile dunes)
*2130 Grey Dunes.
*2140 Decalcified Fixed Dunes (dune heath).
*2150 (Atlantic) Decalcified Fixed Dunes (dune heath)
2190 Humid Dune Slacks

As these habitats are listed on Annex 1 of the Directive they are by definition of
European Community-wide conservation importance and are not, as stated in the ES
Table 7.9, merely of national conservation interest.

From "Public Local Inquiry: Written Submission of Ecology, Habitats and Species
RSPB, SWT, BSBI"