The draft plan starts with numerous pages of vague blather that nevertheless betrays where the managers are coming from.
They first asked us to comment on their Vision which goes like this.
_______________________________________________________________
OUR VISION FOR THE SHEFFIELD MOORS
Vision Statement
Our Vision for the Sheffield Moors by 2028 is:
A dramatic, cherished and working landscape in the Peak District National Park, the Sheffield Moors are being cared for by a thriving collaboration of voluntary, public and private organisations, individuals and the wider community.
Through a shared vision and responsibility this partnership delivers exemplar conservation, heritage management, integrated and multi-use access, and inspiring and co-ordinated engagement.
Moreover, the vision will mean: The Sheffield Moors are the eastern gateway to the Dark Peak, providing exciting and high quality outdoors experiences for all, and bringing people closer to nature through an integrated access network that links ‘town and country’, people and wildlife.To read on click here...
The diverse and distinctive landscape of open moors, dramatic and wild gritstone edges, and enclosed upland pasture is of high quality and management protects and reinforces this historic character, whilst the stories and cultural heritage of the area are shared, cherished and protected.
_____________________________
My response is very similar to that of FoBM and it goes like this fitting into the format requested.
1. Do you support the vision for Sheffield Moors?
The vision is a missed opportunity.
It was not based on a genuine public debate although this was called for more than once during the course of the process. So it was always going to be a bureaucratic fudge. And it is if anything worse.
It is drearily unambitious and unimaginative with no semblance of a big idea to prioritise wildlife and natural landscapes.
The main purpose seems to be to serve the interests of the conservation groups and charities.
So no I don’t support it. I go further and say the production of this ‘vision’ has been a waste of public money and looks like leading to even more unnecessary spending.
2. Is there anything you want to change to improve the draft vision?
Everything. The text is far too subjective.
Almost all terms need defining at least to an extent. There are also too many fluffy words like ‘amazing’ and ‘cherished’ which are meaningless. This kind of document should be a sober and carefully written text, but this is an off-the-shelf promotional brochure.
Good landscape does not need a sales pitch.
The phrase that damns the whole document is “Working Landscape”. That means it will be exploited. This area should be a safe haven from the economy and the inevitable management and development and misuse that always accompanies it.
To read on click here...
No comments:
Post a Comment