I hope they sink (II)

Mark 30 Comments

starkers

The Beds, Cambs and Northants Wildlife Trust has really got stuck in to the Cambridge University Boat Club issue – see their website here.

A letter has been submitted to the Daily/Sunday Telegraph from prominent environmentalists asking the Cambridge University Boat Club to reconsider its position – if not published by Telegraph newspapers it will appear on this blog on Tuesday.

See also the BBC website, BBC Radio 4 World at One (16mins 15 secs into programme), an interview on ITV, this interview on the BBC Cambridgeshire local radio station (about 1hr 50mins in) and the Ely Weekly News.

Also this in the Daily Telegraph (you read it here first).

I’m very interested that the Boat Club were warned by the Wildlife Trust a year ago that this was a very sensitive site and yet decided to press ahead.  I wonder whether they liaised with Natural England too and what advice they may have been given by them…

Wildlife Trust Conservation Manager Martin Baker said: “The new Cambridge University boathouse could hardly have been proposed in a more sensitive location for wildlife along the Ely stretch of the River Great Ouse. We advised the University boat club last year that it was the wrong location for their new development, but unfortunately they have ignored us as well as other local opinion, and seem intent on putting the interests of one boat race a year ahead of valuing the local environment.”

Roger Buisson made a very interesting comment on Monday’s blog – the land in question was owned by us (or at least by the Environment Agency) up until July 2012.  What was EA thinking when it sold this land, knowing its ecological importance, to a developer whose intentions would undermine the ecological importance of the site?  ‘Environment’ Agency indeed?  What was the decison-making process that allowed a piece of land owned by ‘us’ to be sold to developers who would reduce the public value of that land? Did the ‘Environment’ Agency think about the environment or about the money?  We will come back to this issue.  [This raises a lot of issues about how nature would fare if EA gobbled up NE (as they clearly fancy doing) as part of the triennial review of Defra agencies].

The initial survey by The Ecology Consultancy doesn’t look bad and suggested that further work should be done to investigate whether there were otters using the area: ‘further surveys for water vole and otter are recommended’.  However, the further surveys, which took all of part of a single day (11 October 2012), found no evidence of otters being present.  I prefer to believe that Darrell Graham’s regular overnight visits to fish in the area (see Monday’s blog) give a more accurate view of otter activity which is that they are seen on every night.

Oxford are strong favourites to win the Boat Race tomorrow – hooray!

 

[registration_form]

30 Replies to “I hope they sink (II)”

  1. “…. if EA gobbled up NE (as they clearly fancy doing)…”
    Mark. Interesting. What gives you reason to believe the EA “clearly fancies” gobbling up NE?
    Is there anything to read on this?

    1. Doug – an EA and NE merger has always been on the cards even though Ne and Forest Services would make a much better match. Ea is much bigger than EA. Recent feedback from various sources suggests that EA are positioning themselves to welcome NE into their embrace (from which many of us fear it would never emerge or be seen again). And it has already happened in wales.

  2. Thanks Mark.
    It’s the “recent feedback from various sources” that I’d really like to read.

  4. What a shambles! We should not be surprised though as Cambridge University have some form on this sort of issue. Many of us will remember the Felixstowe Dock & Railway Bill which when passed destroyed over 400 acres of pristine SSSI mudflats. This land and indeed the majority of the land on which Felixstowe Docks stands is owned by the very wealthy Trinity College.

    At the time the College working in the background were pressing hard to get the Bill through Parliament. I was Director of Suffolk Wildlife Trust at the time and remember that suggestions were made as to how much the College could improve the Trust’s lot if we withdrew our objection. That fact made us realise they were rattled and we carried on. The excellent Trimley Marshes Reserve would not exist without that effort. By the way Trinity owns the land on which that reserve is situated.

    It seems the Cambridge University have very little real concern about our environment and are more interested in lining their own pockets.

    I normally root for Cambridge being an East Anglian and my son being an ex-Cambridge student but tomorrow I hope too that they sink or some loony jumps into the Thames and stops the race.

  7. Richard Ebbs.
    Thankyou for the link.
    I wish I did find it enlightening, but I am already very aware of the triennial review and the spectrum of scenarios it proposes.
    What I still would be interested to see though, is evidence that the EA clearly fancies gobbling up NE as Mark originally posted.

      1. Richard.
        Many thanks again.

        Yes – I’ve read Martin Harper’s blog (well guessed!).

        And yes… there are many people who speculate that a merger might be possible – (it is after all at one end of the spectrum of scenarios in the DEFRA paper).
        There are also many, many people who would be against that happening.

        Still doesn’t explain though, why Mark thinks the EA doesnt’ just fancy gobbling up NE, but “clearly fancy” doing that. [Quote].

        Mark did kindly answer my original query with his “Recent feedback from various sources suggests that EA are positioning themselves to welcome NE into their embrace” [Quote] line before 7am this morning and I replied at 7 on the dot (comment 3).

  8. At least the Boat Race provides an opportunity to protest against this development. Jumping in the River may not be such a good idea (and I understand security will be tight to prevent any such thing) but a strategically placed banner or two would be widely seen. Unfortunately, as the boat race is taking place nearly 300 miles from my home I won’t be waving any banners myself but I have posted a comment on the Cambridge University Boat Club Facebook page.

  9. Mark,as you know a large piece from your blog in the Telegraph,well done for highlighting this and several other things,all help to save our wildlife.Your campaigns on various wildlife problems and your doggedness in pursuing them is great.

  10. I like the banner idea that Jonathatn suggested but would like to suggest going all medieval and those on the bridges or close enough to chuck eggs and rotten veg 🙂
    I think you need to add BBC local news Look East and ITV’s Anglia Mark too for coverage. From the pieces on the local news what was effective was M.Baker from BCN actually listing the species that would be effected from the building proposal it had my “bird ignorant” girlfriend even remark “that’s alot of animals”…I hope during the planning consultation M.Baker further elaborates by gving a history of the decline of certain species, the protection afforded to their habitats, the slow but steady return of species in the region such as the Marsh Harrier, Bittern and Otters to those making the decisions and perhaps who he should invite those making the decision to the site, I know he will, but thought actually listing the species like he did on the ITV piece really made an average Jane like my girlfriend sit up and take notice…I struggle:(

    1. “….really made an average Jane like my girlfriend…”

      Blimey Douglas….who says romance is dead ?! 🙂

  11. Equally shocking is the slapdash and unprofessional work carried out by so called ecological consultants. Fully appreciating that many of them obviously feel contracted to give their clients the information they want, this is increasingly resulting in flawed ecological reports. This is yet another example of our completely incompetent planning system – those making the decisions on an application are unlikely to be able to make an educated judgement on the quality of the reports and will have to take them in good faith. The consultancy market could do with a good shake up – whatever their qualifications many it would seem have seen this as an opportunity to make alot of money and do the minimum amount of work. This is doing our wildlife no favours and costing charitable organisations huge sums in fighting cases they should not have to fight because if the EA had been done properly [i.e. in an unbiased way] the application would never have gone forward.

    1. Well said Stella. These ‘consultants’ should be held to account and placed on a well publicised blacklist of rogue operators.

        1. I wasn’t specifically referring to the consultants involved in this case, but those consultants that are in the pocket of developers.

          I’ve come across some very dubious reports/surveys over the years. A land agent once remarked to me that he “didn’t use (a certain firm) for ecological surveys because they had a propensity to be too thorough”. He preferred to use another firm that “never caused any problems with the planners”.

          1. I agree with bits of what you both say (Stella and Joe).

            Trouble is, a consultancy that does not give the client what they want is unlikely to be contracted again. I don’t think that many ecological consultants want to be in the pockets of developers: most just want to make a living doing the best that they can for wildlife. If they did more than they were paid to do it a) might lose them further work, at which point they can achieve nothing; and b) would set a precedent suggesting that ecological work is cheap. The flaw is a system that ensures that developers can get away with the bare minimum and that leaves ecological consultants feeling unfulfilled.

    2. Many of the “consultants” use “desk top” studies. Even if site visits are used they are mainly timed for Autumn-Spring visits, ie. when most species are not observable. This also applies to local authorities who do not want to observe what is on a site in case it interferes with “development.” The standard rule is development at any cost.

  12. For obvious reasons your description of Joe W-a bit harsh brought a big smile to my face.

  13. I have it from Natural England that they are not to oppose development but work with them, hey presto it’s sorted then!

    & as for consultants, come on wake up (as Joe W infers), they merely sing the tune they are paid to sing and the few who don’t don’t get the commercial contracts from the likes of the rich and powerful or banks or house developers, energy companies and other such utility contracts!

  14. Interesting comments regarding consultants but there is another side to the story. If they produced poor or inadequate reports then they might continue to be used by rogue developers but their reputation will take a nosedive and their work is unlikley to stand up under scrutiny as the system is open will be looked over by many other experts. Not really a long term business option for the ecology consultant.

  16. Pingback: I hope they sink (V) | Mark Avery

Comments are closed.