This is the fifth blog on the subject of Cambridge University Boat Club’s plans for a new boathouse (here, for new readers, are links to its forerunners; Blog 1, Blog 2, Blog 3, Blog 4).
At the time of my previous blogs I had not seen the objections to the proposed development (which is much more than a simple boathouse) from the RSPB and Natural England; now I have.
Natural England, the government’s advisor on nature conservation (and former wildlife watchdog) objects to the two-storey boathouse development next to a county wildlife site and near an SSSI on four main grounds (and I paraphrase):
- it will damage wildlife interest
- it’s not the most appropriate site
- the ecological assessment wasn’t up to the job
- the proposed mitigation won’t be sufficient.
The RSPB, possibly the best nature conservation organisation in the world (other brands of wildlife NGO are available) objects on the following grounds (and I paraphrase):
- the ecological impact assessment isn’t good enough
- it’ll scare the neighbouring bitterns
- the application site is more important than acknowledged in years of flood and this would affect the conservation status of the SSSI
- the application doesn’t adequately address the quality of the application site
The University Boat Club then had a go at arguing the merits of their case – they tried to show that they knew more about nature conservation than the statutory nature conservation advisor and more about bird conservation than the RSPB. This is certainly their right, and Cambridge folk are quite often a bit arrogant and like arguing (M. Avery MA (Cantab) pers comm). But back came the RSPB with some pretty firm rejoinders.
It’s worth looking through these documents and others on the same website to get a feeling for how the planning process works. Yes it’s rather detailed and dull and painstaking – but would you want it to be quick and easy and for the rich and influential to get an easy run for their (sometimes our) money?
Note the effort and detail put into responding to this application by the local Wildlife Trust and the RSPB. Such work is going on all over the country (and indeed other countries, whether you take that to mean Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, or indeed in some cases outside the UK) and is part of what your membership fees (and mine) pay for. It’s not very glamorous but without these charities putting in the effort an awful lot of shoddy applications would be passed and an awful lot more wildlife would be lost.
If you were on the local planning committee and you got the application to build this boathouse would you know what its snags were without them being pointed out by local residents and by national wildlife charities? I think not.
NE put in a firm objection too. Long may that continue because they must be listened to. Remember, though, that the government is wondering whether to merge NE with the EA, and then remember that it was the EA who sold the land in question to the Cambridge Boat Club – what chance that a merged NE+EA would object to the development that it had helped to make possible? That’s right – none.
One of the things that pains me is that this is my university behaving in this way – and the way it is behaving is shoddy. It is relying on shoddy evidence to justify a shoddy development. I would have objected to ‘shoddy’, I think, before I spent three very enjoyable years at Cambridge reading Natural Sciences, but my dislike of shoddiness was certainly honed at Cambridge. It comes to something when the people who taught one the value of clarity of thought and adequate evidence demonstrate that they didn’t really mean it – or at least only meant it in a sort of academic, ivory-towered sort of way. When it comes to the real world of splashing through the water facing backwards then intellectual rigour can go hang!
Cambridge University won’t be receiving any money from my will, as perhaps they might have done, if they persist in their arrogant plans for this wildlife-harming development. And the next time some undergraduate from Downing College phones me to try to butter me up for a donation I will ask them about the University Boat Club’s development plans instead.
The University motto is Hinc lucem et pocula sacra which roughly translated means From this place, we gain enlightenment and precious knowledge. Really? I’m not so sure.
[registration_form]
What a belter of a post Mark!
A perspective from one of those “other countries” where sadly, not enough of this kind of work is going on.
The oxymoronic mantra of “sustainable growth” must be challenged on every front.
Keep up the good work.
Superb post Mark – possibly your best ever in the year or so I’ve been reading this blog. A slightly lame question – but presumably those of us who don’t have any connection with Cambridge as residents or university alumni can still help those that do by objecting too?
You have every right to object, MK. The plans concern a site identified as being of national importance.
Andrew’s point is very true, generally the more that sustainability is mentioned the less sustainable it is! Development sadly is in the long term not sustainable.
I think that targeting the consultants that have undertaken the surveys is unfair, they are employed by the developers and have a brief, I am sure in this case they delivered what had been ordered.
Your ‘Fighting for Nature’ is an example to us all. Team Avery (Mark and Jennifer) certainly encourage us to think globally/act locally.
Best of luck with you battle!
Anyone can object to any planning application of this type, regardless of where they live and regardless of the site’s conservation status. However, greater weight is likely to be applied to an objector who is a local resident or who can demonstrate a connection with the site (eg they regularly holiday there). Furthermore, the objection(s) must be material to the decision making process. So, arguing that the you don’t want it because it is not very nice is immaterial. However, arguing that it is contrary to the local development plan or has significant negative effects on a protected site (with robust evidence to support your assertions) is material.
It will also be important to note the Council’s Chief Planning Officer’s (CPO) report. Will they recommend refusal or granting. The planning committee are not bound by the CPO’s report but it is influential. The fact that Natural England has objected and sustained an objection is important, though again, their objection is not binding. Finally, the decision in most instances is made by local Councillors. They may be influenced by local opinion (especially if they have narrow majorities) so some decisions will be political! Finally, the NPPF has made it easier for permissions to be granted, regardless of site status. As the Lydd Airport decision has shown, a European Protected Site is by no means a surety against development though in my opinion, Lydd Airport decision is contrary to EU Case-law (eg Waddensee Judgement) and ought to be thrown out by the European Courts.
Richard
This is nearly a rant! I do enjoy a good rant, look. More please …
I wonder if Cambridge (with their multi billion pound endowment) would miss anything from your will Mark?
Doug – probably not. But that’s 100% withdrawal of funding by me. Just need a few thousand others to join in.
Are Universities actually our 21st century monasteries ?
Huge and powerful, the sort of good thing the very, very rich give to to immortalise their souls, and, of course, run by people who not only know they are right but believe they have an absolute right to be right. Oh, and just like the church of the middle ages, they celebrate their power with every more soaring, ambitious building projects. And some scientists even seem to see science as the replacement for religion.
Just like monasteries, universities should aspire to do the right thing, not use their intellectual and financial muscle to bulldoze valid opposition (but maybe when you are that clever no opposition to your views can ever be valid ?)
I hope Cambridge will think again because there is more at stake here than their chosen boathouse site.