006-havsorn-gillsviken

Sea eagle at Gillbergsvik Käftudden Trosa 2017

After Swedish text a google translation to English follows.

Politikerna i Trosa har fått ännu en skrivelse angående exploateringsplanerna för västra Trosa och Tureholmshalvön. Ni kan läsa den nedan.

Vill ni också agera och låta politikerna veta vad ni tycker om deras planer, skriv till politikerna.

Har ni frågor om hur ni kan agera kan ni eposta mig på anna@fargaregarden.se

Ni kan också läsa skrivelsen från boende vid Gillbergsvik Käftudden i inlägget Låt örnen flyga.

Dela gärna detta inlägg vidare, så att många kan läsa och få information om frågan.

 

till-trosas-politiker-feb-2017-pdf_sida_1

till-trosas-politiker-feb-2017-pdf_sida_2

 

Trosa politicians has got a new letter from citizen who thinks the exploitation of Trosa nature is not so good idea considering the need to save Trosa nature. You can read a google translation of the letter here:

“Letter to the politicians in Trosa
Municipal government, City Council,
Planning Board
For information to:
Mats Gustafsson, Environment Manager
Linda Axelsson, planning manager

Politicians in Trosa – Think again!
On the occasion of the municipal decision in November last year on “Withdrawal of
exploitation remuneration and the overall development of the economy and ride west Trosa “(KS 2016/130), I want to make a few comments that should be of great importance for the future planning Trosa expansion.
Of the basis for the decision shows that the different types of exploitation revenues should cover municipal costs for Inbound western Trosa. Since the cost of entrance is now estimated
be as high as 130-150 million, the municipality has had to expand the exploitation area to
include Tureholm peninsula, although large parts of the peninsula is a significant part of
the so-called worthy of protection Outer coastal zone. In the municipal comprehensive plan (page 101) describes
Planning principles for the outer coastal zone as follows:
“Outer coastal zone housing the archipelago’s islands and mainland coastal part. The area is of
great interest for tourism and outdoor recreation, and large parts have significant
natural and cultural values. The proximity to the sea means that urban pressure is particularly high. New settlements are tested strictly with the region’s large values for active outdoor life
and in light of the large building pressure in the area. For the proposed
Guidelines for construction in rural areas, especially the outer coastal zone, assessed additional buildings or perming of homes to be limited. ”
It is therefore remarkable that municipal now without hesitation a mortgage
exploitation of, among other things Lagnö, Gillbergsvik, Hällsnäs and Käftudden with no less than 160 new homes to partially finance Inbound western Trosa! All the mentioned areas, except Lagnö, the subject of the Outer Coastal Zone. In addition, the Municipality expects to “densification” of Tureholm peninsula with hundreds of new homes through fees for advance notice will also be the co-financing of the entrance.
It is particularly astonishing that the decision of the exploiter-economy is not
was preceded by a study of the environmental consequences of exploiting Tureholm peninsula! is This procedure certainly consistent with the intentions regarding local democracy? For me
it seems a great risk that the municipality and with this decision commits to implement
future exploitation of Tureholm peninsula which is extremely doubtful, not least from
term sustainability.
Trosa prides itself after to be one of Sweden’s 97 Eco-municipalities with the aim to promote
development towards a more sustainable society and to act as role models and pioneers in
environmental field. The decision on the development of the economy and Ride West Trosa, contrary to settlement principles in municipal comprehensive plan, I see as a grave departure from this eco-focus. In addition to these objections – against the municipality’s decision on the financing of Inbound West Trosa will be at the expense of exploitation of Tureholm Peninsula including parts of the conservation value Outer coastal zone – are also set location to point out some facts and bring a discussion on the construction of Inbound western Trosa.
Construction of West Entrance Trosa motivated by two reasons:
– Partly to relieve smack Bridge and create a long term sustainable solution for traffic along
Nyängsvägen and central Trosa otherwise,

– Partly to allow for the continued expansion of Trosa urban west.
In the memo Transport Administration sent out in the fall called “The basis for the decision of the string, Roadmap Inbound western Trosa “reveals facts that do not seem to have attracted the attention of municipality, namely:
– Even though a new entrance for the Western Trosa built, traffic in central Trosa not
to reduce. This is due to the increased traffic that planned residential and extended
permanent residents of Tureholm Peninsula causes (p 18).

 

Inbound western Trosa will in other words not to be as effective as hoped when
for traffic relief. This result is not entirely surprising since the so-called entrance leads
the business area north of downtown Trosa and involves a detour to the attractive
target points in Trosa center. (The previous name Trosa bypass is really more
accurate.)
In the slightly longer term, Vagnharad be an increasingly heavier destination point in connection with Ostlänkens (a railway project) expansion including the travel center at the new station location in Vagnhärad.
Together with the upcoming expansions of businesses and homes in Vagnhärad
will also service offerings evolve and become more equal in Trosa. For Västerljungsbor
and other residents along the road, Studsvik will Vagnharad thus become the natural
destination point for many trips. This means in turn a release of Vasterljung (road
782), and today entrances to the Trosa through smack Bridge and Nyängsvägen.
Is there light of the above, any alternative plan to a rapid expansion of Inbound western Trosa? Entrance’ve long had a high priority in municipality! Perhaps it might be an idea to have such a hurry with either the construction of the entrance or neighborhoods in western Trosa, but wait and see what will happen with traffic flows when Vagnharad becoming an increasingly powerful magnet in connection with the expansion of Eastern Link?
Meanwhile, in anticipation of the East Link, the concentration can instead be on developing
Vagnhärads service offerings as well as street between Trosa and Vagnhärad. This would be entirely in line with the County Administrative Landscape Strategy for Sustainable Urban Development. It is pointed strip Trosa city – Vagnhärad – Gnesta selected as one of four areas of particular importance to regional meaning. According Trosa plan says the municipality to this position from County Board “is of considerable importance and the importance of sticking to the agreed Strategy “(p 32).
Therefore, I appeal to your local politicians to ponder you and shoot at the plans for the Western Trosa so that the values in the outer coastal zone of Tureholm Peninsula will not be sacrificed to solve the funding The entrance of western Trosa.
Sincerely
Monica Casemyr
former strategic planner at SL, Stockholm Public Transport”

 

In Swedish is a very well written letter (can´t tell if the google translation is as well)

I wish I could write like that, in two pieces of paper the writer capture all issues with the grandios project and why we shouldn´t proceed.

You can also read the post Let the eagle fly.

Sharing is caring, so feel free to share this post if you find it important to save our nature.

Anna

I think this drawing will suit the theme of this post.

img_5237-1

and another picture of the sea eagle on a top of a pine tree from Gillbergsvik, an area where a big land owner plans a marina for 150 boats! That will scare the sea eagle away.

009-havsorn-gillsviken

Anna

 

Advertisements