![Pointillist at en.wikipedia [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], from Wikimedia Commons](https://markavery.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/766px-University_Boat_Race_Thames_map.svg_.png)
Why? Because the Cambridge University Boat Club is planning to build a new boathouse (although it is far more than just a boathouse) on one of the best sites for otters in Cambridgeshire, and its impact on local wildlife will be severe.
Ely Wildspace has a good record on wildlife issues having persuaded Natural England to notify the Ely Pits and Meadows Site of Special Scientific Interest as recently as June 2008 – and that really was an achievement since site designation has stalled in recent decades. This site is not only important for extinct pleiosaurs but also for living bitterns – what a heady combination!
The University Boat Club have put in for planning permission to overlook the SSSI and Ely residents are, rightly, up in arms about it. Not only will this be the first development on the south bank of the River Ouse in these parts but it also directly overlooks the SSSI and is itself a County Wildlife Site because of its importance.
You might be tempted to write off the objections of scores and scores of local Ely residents (over 100 of them which is a huge number for a proposal of this sort) as nimbyism but when you see that the Beds, Cambs and Northants Wildlife Trusts has also objected on wildlife grounds (I’m glad that I am a member) then you can see that this is an important case.
The Wildlife Trust objection is detailed and convincing. It mentions the importance of this site as part of a wider whole of the SSSI and county wildlife site, and it mentions the otters, bitterns and floodplain meadows affected. If this were an SSSI then no development would be allowed but because it is right next to one then it has little statutory protection and that is why many of us laugh when we hear the government and developers say that the planning system is too restrictive – in fact it is usually too permissive.
Visit the East Cambridgeshire District Council website and you will find the Wildlife Trust detailed submission and lots of others (the website is a bit of a nightmare to navigate though). Mrs A Hodges, whoever she may be, certainly knows her stuff and makes a very detailed and, on the face of it, convincing case why this damaging proposal must be rejected by the Councillors if they are to remain true to their own planning policy.
A Nigel Wood comments as follows:
‘I went to look at the site the other day. It’s a quiet part of the river next to a quiet road and there is nothing there except riverbank and wildlife. Standing on the flood barrier all I heard was the noise of geese on the river. As I stood there it did occur to me that of the 15 sites looked at this must be the most environmentally damaging of them all. Incredible to think that this is proposed by one of our foremost Universities.’
‘The idea that a large building with access roads, parking, accommodation and external lighting will be put in this quiet spot in the lee of the Cathedral needs a lot of publicity and public debate. The contrast with the current debate on Ely’s Southern Bypass is stark. That has been the subject of road shows and publicity for more than 3 years and alternatives have been extensively discussed in public. That has not been the case for this Boathouse and so far as I can see the publicity has been minimal.‘
I’ve also been in touch with a fisherman, Darrell Graham and was very moved by what he wrote:
‘For the last three years I have fished Fore Mill Wash virtually every Friday night, and the odd weekends, fishing the area where they plan to site the new boathouse. September last year was the first time that I have seen otters in the wash area, I have seen the otters there every Friday night/weekends since then.‘
‘As I normally arrive a few hours before darkness and fish until daylight the following morning, I have been luckily enough to witness the wide variety of wildlife that is present in the area, this includes otters, Bitterns, barn owls, herons, bats, water vole and muntjac deer just to name a few.‘
‘The site for the boathouse would mean that the established reed bed would be destroyed, the area that I regularly see the otters.‘
‘I have quickly read Cambridge University’s ecology report for the site, which states that no construction work will be allowed to take place during the hours of darkness, this is to allow a dark corridor for the otters to feed/access other areas, however, once the club is up and running, with dormitories being used, meetings taking place etc… and with the security lighting, the dark corridor for the otters will not exist.’
I found that a very powerful account.
There are two ways that this damaging development can be stopped: the Councillors could stick to their policy and reject the application or enough people could point out to Cambridge University that this is an unacceptable and damaging proposal which reflects badly on the UK’s greatest university and will damage its reputation locally and around the world at a time when it is trying to develop a reputation as a seat of knowledge on the environment and conservation issues.
I’ll come back to this on Saturday, but I’m still hoping that Cambridge sinks on Sunday.
[registration_form]
I very much hope that the proposal is kicked into touch as it would clearly be an act of ecological vandalism.
There is another case at the moment where a major development threatens a newly designated SSSI, at Lodge Hill In the Medway District in Kent (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/nightingales-may-scupper-plan-for-5000-new-homes-in-kent-8533365.html). There, the plans threaten what has been identified as probably the most important site for Nightingales in the country but Medway Council are determined to press ahead with a massive housing development. The leader of Medway Council is reportedly angry at the designation of the site as a SSSI, referring to it as a decision of “the unelected quangocrats of Natural England”.
Wildlife in this country is suffering a continual attrition from a variety of pressures that have been well aired on this web-site and it is vital that developments such as these that threaten at a stroke to wipe out important wildlife sites should be fiercely resisted.
I often go past these pits on the train, although I didn’t know what they were called until now. I’m always pleasantly surprised by the number of birds visible from the train, and it doesn’t surprise me that they’re of high value. What does surprise me is these construction plans – it would be a real shame to lose even part of this valuable habitat.
Matt- thanks. Yes, it’s a bit of the train journey when I always stop and look too.
It’s so appalling and leaves one feeling so helpless and frustrated.
Where are the pleiosurs (sic) that aren’t extinct?
Filbert – hiding well? Have improved my spelling/typing, thanks.
That whirring noise is Mary Anning spinning in her grave …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleiosaur
anyway – pedantry apart 🙂 – Do these people need to travel all the way to Ely, pointlessly burning fuel to get there in their jamjars? – or do they row along the Cam to get there?
Whats a Churches Lee which pops up in Nigel Woods comment?
I think he means in the shelter of the Cathedral, Douglas.
I only ask because a relative of mine moved very close to a CofE church and was handed a bill of £12,500 for repairs to the church and it was some odd medieval law that meant the church could and I couldn’t remember if it was the “lee” or some other oddity of law, if it is that could be another way of blocking this building proposal, though given the close relationship between CofE and Cambs Uni it would probably be waived, the other possibility would be for an NGO to step in and purchase the land off the boat club…perhaps?
I think what your friend fell foul of was chancel repair liability on a property classified as ‘glebe’. Glebe was land that was provided to generate income for a parson to live on and to finance the upkeep of the churches chancel. When the land was sold the liability to finance the upkeep of the chancel transferred to the new owner and was then passed on at each subsequent sale. This has provided a nasty surprise to a number of householders such as your friend, when the liability has actually been enforced. The government has declined to legislate to end this strange liability but has required parishes to register all such properties in their parish by October of this year, after which they will only be able to exercise the right to demand money from properties that are on the register.
Sadly, I don’t think this rather strange relict of ecclesiastic law offers any hope with respect to blocking the proposed boat-house.
That was it, Glebe, his street name has Glebe in it’s title. Thanks Jonathan. It was bugging me that:)
Presumably one of the problems of these type of colleges owning land in general.Lets hope common sense prevails.
I hope the light blues win.
If only to show East Cambs DC that the current university boat club facilities are more than enough to produce a winning eight (or two) and new facilities are not particularly necessary for the University rowers to remain “competitive” (at least with Oxford) in the 21st century…
With the present government anything will happen to destroy our and wildlifes environment.
you are so right about this government
The boathouse+ application is being repeated hundreds of times all over the country every month. It’s a bit like demolishing a house by taking bricks out at random – you may be lucky and the house stay up for quite a time but ultimately it will all come crashing down – no house and all its constituent parts crushed and useless.
The kind of semi local amenity that the boathouse is an example of is just the sort of development that a Council planning department will support. They have no remit to consider these in a wider context. This leaves it to local people to mount an anti campaign – this in itself has a negative psychological impact – and it would be interesting to know just how many of these campaigns are successful. For the local people who really understand and care about this sort of destructive development running a campaign requires commitment, money, stamina and some quite specialised skills and knowledge. You can do all this and fail, with no redress. There is something very wrong at heart of our planning system – it expects local representatives and councils to take decisions based on dictats from central government which makes it virtually impossible for the local issues to be taken into account. As far as central government are concerned there are no ‘local’ issues – only national economic targets.
We need to get back to a planning system which is all about the wise use of our resources rather than a tool to aid development.
Well made point Stella, but hasn’t it always been divide & rule.
The planning system is desperately in need of yet another overhaul but equally we need agencies and authorities fit for purpose in terms of protecting sites of nature conservation value, not to mention safeguarding SSSIs & Natura 2000 sites. The ‘Muzzled Watchdogs’ have morphed to become ‘lapdogs’ and those we hope defend now tend to undertake ‘building biodiversity’ by way of mitigation projects.
But that shouldn’t stop local grassroots activists from mounting campaigns.
I hesitate to disagree but would suggest that you don’t pin your objections to the otter mast. I haven’t managed to find the WT statement yet and there may well be good reasons for objecting to this development but as far as I can see, impact on otters isn’t one of them.
I don’t agree with everything that is said in the otter report but nor can I see any significant adverse effects on otter from this development.
I too was an undergraduate at Cambridge, but a canoeist, not a rower. Nevertheless I hope that they do win this weekend and that objections to the development are based on real adverse impacts, not imagined ones.
Paul,
I am aware of your significant experience in mitigating otter mortality on roads but there are factors at this site you may not be aware of. One kilometer to the east on the River Ouse is an otter black spot where at least five otters have been killed on Queen Adelaide Way in recent years, crossing from some former settling ponds, now an SSSI. The danger that this residential development presents is that otters will be deterred from travelling west along the river in the direction of the nightime lights, noise and human activity and be more likely to travel east and risk the crossing into the settling ponds, increasing their mortality risk from traffic along this increasingly busy route between two SSSIs.
The summary of the developers environmental report on otters significantly understates the importance of the site to them. There are some good potential (possibly actual) otter lying-up sites there.
The CUBC have several other alternatives open to them, it would be a great pity to loose an excellent wild site so close to a great city.
if this gets the go ahead then doesn’t it open the door for anyone to do what they like regardless !! i think the answer is yes.
Thanks to everyone for your interest. You can hear the Wildlife Trust BCN’s Conservation Manager talk more about the subject on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire bbc.in/11PU8wF
You can also comment on proposals on the East Cambs District Council page. (You do need to register to be able to comment) http://wtru.st/13zYEk8
Mark and other readers
Nobody in the comments above has picked up on something rather more insidious about this proposal – it is on land that was until very recently owned by you and me – the taxpayers of the United Kingdom. The parcel of land concerned was previously owned by the Environment Agency – see the first paragraph of the Executive Summary of one of the documents that accompanies the planning application “Appendix A Report on site selection” where the last sentence clearly states “After further enquiry and negotiation, the Fore Mill Wash site was chosen and was purchased freehold from the Environment Agency in July 2012.”
I am sure everybody remembers the fuss made about the disposal of Forestry Commission land – where is the fuss about the disposal of this parcel of public land. It might be a done deal but that does not make it morally defensible. Was this parcel of land offered on the open market? As a parcel of land of identified nature conservation value was it first offered to a nature conservation body to purchase?
Maybe there is a journalist or an MP who would like to ask questions and bring this out in to the open.
As tax payers we all have a right to know the procedures by which this land was sold to the University.
Regards
Roger Buisson
Roger – very good point! Thank you for that.