The document was compiled and issued along with a press release - which we think is rather limited in its summary of the actual document - (rather obviously) leaning towards the better side of the report for BVT. However, in the spirit of the press release, we will start with it's points.

• The points offered for guidance to reporters in the press sheet is not a good start. Point 2 refers to the apparent 'minimal impact on these and existing lanes' when talking about the hedgerows in the centre of the site that are of nature conservation interest. This is plainly pie in the sky speculation - the incredible increase in traffic, people and changes to water and waste flow must impact on these - Study of the history of similar site development is really the only way of proving this.

• Point 3 'Development will of course lead to a loss of grassland - most of which has been improved agriculturally and is of limited botanical interest. The bulk of the more interesting semi-improved grassland will be unaffected except for one piece of 6m x 130m which will be used for construction of the intenal road.' - We know very well that the 'more-interesting' grassland is unreplaceable and roads are not just dropped into place - obviously the damaged to the land is going to be much wider than this - what about the road workings storage site - what land is going to be used for this?

• Point 5 'Areas of wetland will not be directly affected' We question just how they will be affected - the building of housing, industry, shops and services must affect the natural water table and flows around the area. This is more important than initially meets the eye - Water coarses in and around the whole of Coalbrookdale could be affected by this disturbance. This is followed in point 7 with mention of eliminating the risk of dewatering. We are waiting for more details on this - e.g. just how is any dewatering going to be avoided?

• This leads onto point 8 - where a mention of 'BVT will undertake appropriate measures to safeguard the newts, for example by not developing within a suitable buffer-zone' - yet referring to the actual report where - in article 4.2.2.1 it points out 'Great Crested Newts are known to occur in the proposed development area, specifically in the area of Burroughs Bank Pools in the South of the Area'. We are sure that in law a buffer zone of 500m is required, so the effect on development - should it be properly implemented - will be devastating on the obvious scale of economies required to make this project viable. We still feel that changes in drainage and water table is almost certain to (in the words of Section 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act(1981)) to '.. cause damage to habitats (ponds and immmediately surrounding habitats) upon which the species depend'. We hope this ill thought out venture will be noticed more thoroughly by BVT trustees and stopped immediatly.