Question 3 Do you have any comments/observations on any environmental/landscape/wildlife concerns? Please detail: (all comments are given in full as submitted except in three cases which were very long and the full quotation is below the table) Summary of responses given below: 40 responders commented specifically to support the Plan, 11 had nothing further to add to the plan while 41 made no comments so in view of the question silence indicates the plan says all it needs to do, giving contents’ in total. There were 18 more specific comments, one of which was concerned ‘92 about engaging the RSPB which has been done, 2 on concerns about cycle paths but most on particular local concerns or emphasising the good environmental and wild life features to be preserved. There was a third grouping of 12 comments on the balance between wild life and human use of the land scape three quarters of which feel the emphasis is too heavily on wild life In support of the Plan Detailed concerns Balance between wild life and human Partnership Comment activity 1 I strongly trial with the current policy I am slightly concerned that Wildlife appears to be getting priority The RSPB not only have a RSPB are not fully involved over river conservation all along the Alde voting member of the and Ore (Havergate Island/Lantern Partnership representing marshes/Hazelwood marshes etc.). them but also have been Perhaps this is being taken too far and a involved in a number of deeper look should be taken at the risk of discussions. The loss of navigability due to this strategy. compatibility of their policies is further clarified in the final plan (see page 24). 2 3. Happy to accept minor risks to the environment that Please keep the path along the I consider that FAR TOO MUCH A cycle path along the this plan may cause; benefits of plan to residents and top of the river wall as natural consideration is given to wildlife at the Aldeburgh wall (FC10) is visitors are substantial and more important as possible - no paving - and expense of the general environment, and only a possibility and discourage cyclists. I say that as a long term member of the would be in addition to RSPB. the footpath. The paths do get very muddy and dangerous and paths with a high footfall may be improved with some form of as is being ‘paving’ at Martlesham Creek.
Question 3 Do you have any comments/observations on any environmental/landscape/wildlife concerns? Please detail: (all comments are given in full as submitted except in three cases which were very long and the full quotation is below the table) Summary of responses given below: 40 responders commented specifically to support the Plan, 11 had nothing further to add to the plan while 41 made no comments so in view of the question silence indicates the plan says all it needs to do, giving ‘92 contents’ in total. There were 18 more specific comments, one of which was concerned about engaging the RSPB which has been done, 2 on concerns about cycle paths but most on particular local concerns or emphasising the good environmental and wild life features to be preserved. There was a third grouping of 12 comments on the balance between wild life and human use of the land scape three quarters of which feel the emphasis is too heavily on wild life In support of the Plan Detailed concerns Balance between wild life and human activity Partnership Comment 1 I strongly with the current policy I am slightly concerned that RSPB are not fully involved Wildlife appears to be getting priority over river conservation all along the Alde and Ore (Havergate Island/Lantern marshes/Hazelwood marshes etc.). Perhaps this is being taken too far and a deeper look should be taken at the risk of loss of navigability due to this strategy. The RSPB not only have a voting member of the Partnership representing them but also have been involved in a number of discussions. The compatibility of their policies is further clarified in the final plan (see page 24). 2 3. Happy to accept minor risks to the environment that this plan may cause; benefits of plan to residents and visitors are substantial and more important Please keep the path along the top of the river wall as natural as possible - no paving - and discourage cyclists. I consider that FAR TOO MUCH consideration is given to wildlife at the expense of the general environment, and I say that as a long term member of the RSPB. A cycle path along the Aldeburgh wall (FC10) is only a possibility and would be in addition to the footpath. The paths do get very muddy and dangerous and paths with a high footfall may be improved with some form of ‘paving’ as is being trial at Martlesham Creek.
Question-3-AOEP-Consultation.docx