HMS Northumberland's anchor preservation plans by council
Alnwick Castle councillor Gordon Castle stressed the importance of preserving the ship's heritage ahead of "the old warrior" being scrapped in a few months time.He asked the council leader to ensure "such a significant part of our naval heritage is never forgotten."
Sanderson, Conservative, said: "HMS Northumberland helped in the Caribbean catching cocaine smugglers and followed Russian vessels in the Atlantic. "She was a great vessel and our relationship was very strong."The anchor has been described as a "challenge" to obtain but Sanderson said "it is only right we keep asking for even more now."The Royal Navy Frigate was granted the Freedom of Northumberland by the council in 2002.It was designed for anti-submarine warfare but was also used for security patrols, escort duties and anti-piracy missions.In 2023, it spent its time in the North Atlantic, North Sea and Arctic Circle.One of its missions was to shadow two Russian destroyers, as they sailed near UK waters.
Follow BBC North East on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
41 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Miliband's eco zealotry is destroying the beauty of rural Britain
The thorny truth of it is that there's nothing natural about the countryside. Rural Britain is a drained and deforested landscape where industrial food production is the order of the day. Iconic species like the turtledove are all but gone and our hedgerows, or what remains of them anyway, will be quieter in decades to come. And yet, that doesn't mean there's no point in trying to protect the countryside. In spite of it all, this summer has seen extraordinary amounts of fly life and consequently chicks of species like the English partridge are doing relatively well. In May, I found myself, in a real fury, running down the lane outside my house to ask a tractor driver who had been sent by the council why he was mowing the verge? 'There are birds nesting there', I shouted over the roar of the diesel engine. He shrugged, in a friendly sort of way, and said he didn't know really – the grass wasn't causing any sort of issue in terms of visibility, but he was seemingly just doing it because he'd been told to. In a sense, fair dos. He was only doing his job but at the same time I find it maddening. The unthinking willingness with which we humans destroy the countryside in pursuit of either 'tidiness' or 'growth' is horrendous. The news that Ed Miliband is planning to further relax planning rules around new wind turbines in an attempt to double onshore wind generation by 2030 has caused a stir. Some of the turbines will be of the giant and immensely ugly bird of prey and bat-killing sort and others will be smaller turbines that will appear in people's gardens. Planning restrictions, which previously made it difficult to put a turbine up next to that patio of yours, are set to be lifted. Clearly, the pursuit of energy independence and clean power is a good thing. It's also worth noting that income farmers generate from energy companies putting turbines on their ground is often much needed but are the downsides really being thought about? It's estimated that turbines kill up to 100,000 birds a year. Often birds of prey, like the hen harrier, are lured in by the carcasses of previously-killed birds and are struck by the blades. It's also believed that the number of bats killed by turbines might be massively underestimated. Due to being so small the remains don't tend to get found but remarkably, sniffer dogs are now being used to detect little shredded pieces of bat. It is worth noting that if you or I killed a bat, we could be hit with a fine of up to £5,000 pounds. The drive to send turbines marching across the land is all part of a pattern that the RSPB picked up on when Kevin Austin, their director of policy, noted that: 'the Government's Planning and Infrastructure Bill currently risks weakening existing nature protections.' He went on to say that 'urgent amendments to the Bill are needed to ensure it enables development in a way that does not threaten our most precious habitats and wildlife.' Part of me worries that Labour's take is that the British landscape is now so degraded and wildlife is doing so badly that it frankly doesn't matter anymore. Why not just tarmac it all? Angela Rayner has explicitly said building must come above all else but where does that end? In the British Isles in 1500 there were just 2.5 million people – we are now at almost 70 million and rising. Quite a number of species that were flourishing in the 16th century, like the corncrake and the black grouse, are all but gone – our growth and their disappearance are not a coincidence. What is Labour's vision for the future? Are we going to have some of Miliband's turbines on every hill, Rayner's new builds in every meadow, and not a bird or a bat in sight? Sure, the countryside is a managed and cultivated place. And clean energy really matters, but there is immense value too in the beauty of rural Britain and our desire for growth, be it roads or housing or turbines, will inevitably contribute to the squeezing out of species that are only just hanging on.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Stop mowing your lawn. It's good for wildlife and your soul
You don't need a peer-reviewed paper and full biodiversity survey to differentiate the two halves of King's College lawn. On one side of Cambridge's most famous back garden, all is as it should be. Immaculate grass sweeps down to the Cam. On the other side there is messiness. The stripes are gone, the grass has grown and a lot else has flourished besides. Like a miniature rainforest, each plant jostles, seeking to poke through the thick canopy. Underground there is, presumably, more disorder — as generations of head gardeners spin in their graves. Let them spin. Quietly, spreading like wind-blown poppy seeds, insinuating itself like yellow rattle, an idea has taken root. What if we tried, occasionally, not mowing our grass? You have probably noticed this trend. There's the public park with long grass at the boundary or weeds growing under trees. There's the roadside verge that used to be a stubbly, yellowed desert, but today rustles bushily in the breeze of passing cars. And, rustling above, there are butterflies. We don't know with great accuracy what is happening to insects. What studies we do have show it's not good. Our springs are increasingly silent, our windscreens increasingly unsplattered. There are many reasons for this, some complex. There is a potential solution that isn't: stop making green monocultures. Most environmental challenges were unavoidable. We would always have burnt fossil fuels and chopped down trees. But the idea that a garden should have a tightly cut lawn? That's a little more idiosyncratic. In the 18th century, Capability Brown, tasked with landscaping the great country homes, sought to model the grazed grass of bucolic idylls. This style, which without sheep required a lot of labour, became aspirational. When the rotary mower did away with the need for scythe-wielding peasants, it became an aspiration the masses could achieve. It is not unreasonable to think you could rerun history and have very different gardens. Is this what is now happening? The fightback began, probably, with No Mow May. Like a horticultural version of Movember, but for bushy lawns rather than upper lips, this scheme by the charity Plantlife has given dads licence to put their feet (and Flymo) up for four weeks. But the real revolution has been civic. Councils, seeing that most unlikely of congruences, virtuousness and thriftiness, have been delighted. Scores officially follow No Mow May. Many have found it convenient to extend into Let It Bloom June. Then, Make The Verges Jolly July has become The Council Is Bust August. Will it work? You don't, as I said, need a biodiversity survey to understand why insects would prefer the wildflowers. But this is Cambridge, there are a lot of fellows at high table to convince and a lot of PhDs on hand to do the convincing. So they did a survey anyway. The results? On the wildflower bit they found 25 times the mass of invertebrates. Above, there were three times as many bats. So, yes, I think the no-mow revolution should continue. But, in truth, I think it should do so because of another species: homo sapiens. Capability Brown got it wrong. Grass is boring. For a truly grand garden that really uplifts the soul, you need a bit of messiness.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Neighbour hits out at farmer over canopy that lights up 'like Blackpool illuminations' at night
A neighbour has hit out at a farmer over a canopy that lights up 'like Blackpool illuminations' at night, claiming it's ruining the tranquility of a picturesque valley in Sheffield. But the farmer at the centre of the row insists she's done nothing wrong and has accused the neighbour of making a fuss over nothing. The structure. built last autumn at Same Hill Farm on Hagg Lane in the scenic Rivelin Valley, features a metal-framed canopy over an equestrian training area. While planning permission was granted by Sheffield City Council last year, not everyone is happy. Sue Winger, 66, who has lived on nearby Tofts Lane for over three decades, says the building is an 'eyesore', especially when floodlights illuminate the night sky. The fuming resident said the lights 'lit up like Blackpool Illuminations', adding that photos she has taken from Tofts Lane and Roscoe Bank disprove the council's claim that 'the site is not readily visible from any direction given the context amongst woodland'. She added: 'I want the council to explain how their written words are so far from the truth. They need to explain what they have written'. The official report from the council had insisted that the site was 'located in a remote and discreet position, enclosed on all boundaries by trees and woodland within the surrounding Rivelin Valley'. It also said: 'There is no meaningful view of the site from any direction, other than glimpsed views, due to both the vegetation and topography of the area'. But Sue says that is nonsense, and she is furious that residents were not consulted before permission was granted. However, farm owner Rachael Brownrigg said she was unaware she needed planning permission for the lights, and after an amended application granted permission for the interior lights, used between 7am and 9pm, she removed the external ones and has not used the lights through the night. Rachael also said she only used the lights 'two or three times'. The farm owner said: 'She didn't know that this planning had been approved because she missed the notice period, and that's why she has got a bee in her bonnet about it. 'Why is she bothered about a canopy? If she wants to look at green fields, why doesn't she go and buy a house that's in the middle of green fields?' Rachael said Sue has 'caused her a load of hassle' as she applied for planning permission on a large extension to build a five-bed house. 'I would just say to her, 'Can you get a proper job instead of bothering everybody else?' Sue has also accused Rachael of tearing down trees to make way for the construction - something Rachael flatly denies. 'I have not taken any trees down at all, not a single tree,' Rachael said. But Sue isn't backing down. She's now escalated the issue to Sheffield Hallam MP Olivia Blake and contacted the Ombudsman, demanding an investigation into how the planning decision was made in the first place.
