Cotswold Water Park SSSI

Natural England recently announced that the 177 lakes of the Cotswold Water Park have been ‘granted’ SSSI status, although this decision is out to the standard consultation with owners, occupiers and other notified parties.

This must be good news because it is a very rare event that new areas are protected.

It’s worth reading the press release from NE to get an insight into their mindset.

This site deserves protection but the press release makes it sound as though a bountiful NE has, in its generosity, deigned to protect this site as a favour. NE – this is your job – to protect nature through such means. It’s good to see you doing this here and there.

The main wildlife importance of the site is its 35,000 waterbirds which is partly due to it being a big gull roost. The WEBS counts 5-year moving average of waterfowl is 16,195 (years 2014/15 – 2018/19). The ‘current’ (up to 2018/19) 5-year moving average of waterfowl numbers is the lowest through the period. The site is internationally important for Mute Swan and Shoveler, and nationally important for Gadwall, Tufted Duck, Pochard, Coot, Great Crested Grebe and Green Sandpiper, and for Lesser Black-backed Gull.

A few parts of the existing SSSI are being denotified for what seem sensible reasons (mostly small original cartographic errors) and the supporting information is worth a read if only to gain a better understanding of the detailed process of SSSI notification.

Note that use of lead shot is an Operation Requiring Consent. That’s good. I wonder how much wildfowling goes on here. Maybe some readers of this blog know the answer to that?

When Marian Spain says ‘Special places like this form the vital backbone of a nature recovery network‘ it’s unclear to me whether she means SSSIs (which might be true provided that NE does its job much better over the years ahead) or whether she means worked out gravel pits with lots of Coots and a large gull roost, in which case I think that is a bit of a stretch.

[registration_form]

18 Replies to “Cotswold Water Park SSSI”

  1. Just picking up on where you leave off Mark, I too found that the fanfare around this announcement didn’t sit all that easily with me. I don’t know the site that well, but well enough, and on my last visit to it I saw lots of activities going on that didn’t seem very SSSI-ey. More Country Park-ey. Of course somewhere can be both, and worked out aggregate pits fall into that category more often than other places perhaps, but whilst the Costwold Water Park is no doubt deserving of expanded SSSI status, there is a risk that this good news story is being used as an attempt to overshadow what is happening to rather a lot of the other SSSIs around the nation. There seem to have been a few of these new/expanded SSSI stories recently, bit not many of improving the condition of the remainder. Call me a grinch but designating new or expanded SSSIs is no substitute for looking after the ones we’ve already got. Or put another way, accumulating SSSIs and then putting them in a neglected pile in the corner is just collecting, not conserving.

    Perhaps I just got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning.

  2. Hello mark .i have been keeping an eye on the shooting channels .”somebody needs to watch these idiots.”they word everything different to suit them regarding the law and your news stories encouraging gun wielders to carry on regardless. i like to get my facts right could you tell me the new rule regarding killing corvids in the protection of non native species ie pheasants and red legs as something was mentioned rather important but seems to have calmed down.i am also interested in the entrapment of birds with decoys that would normally fly over fields therefore posing no threat to crops or health.regards Derek Griffiths.

  3. I think you both might have got out the wrong side of the bed on this. This area (and bear in mind we are talking over 40 square miles) has come about because of gravel extraction over the last 30 years. The local planners were, right from the start, supportive of ensuring the area was returned to a mix of habitats and useage. So yes it is a bit ‘parksy’ with holiday housing , low key water sports and education activities for youngsters. It could have easily been filled in and returned to simple agricultural land but it is now much more than that.

    All the lakes are beneficial to wildlife and the SSSI covers a wide area surrounding each lake so woodland, scrub and much else will now get protection. It is that protection that is needed because having such a variety of interests does create pressures. This will ensure that proper consultation is undertaken when development proposals are put forward.

    This isn’t a whim; the designation of the CWP as a SSSI has been a long time coming. This has taken many years and reflects the persistence of Peter Holmes from NE, who has worked hard in bringing this to fruition. The administration and site surveys involved in achieving this have been considerable and this designation rewards the amount of time put in by staff at NE, staff at the local Cotswold Water Park Trust and many local volunteers who produced survey results on the key species for which this area is important.

    There is considerable pressure on the area. 20,000 people live permanently in the area with around 1,000,000 visiting annually. Whilst the SSSI designation will not, and should not, affect the use of the area for all purposes this will help to ensure that its wildlife can be protected from inappropriate disturbance and damage.

    35000 waterbirds aren’t just gulls and even they are worthy of protection. When some populations within the water park have reached national and internationally significant levels it would have been nonsensical not have increased the protection on this site. This is a young site and it is changing all the time. Probably only half of the potential gravel has been dug.

    I won’t reiterate what breeding and wintering birds can be found here, it is quite clear on the designation but if you are interested in visiting CWP there a bird sightings website produced by local birders at: https://cotswoldwaterpark.wordpress.com/.

    During this process a NE staff member was overheard saying “The CWP has the potential to exceed the importance of Ham Wall and Otmoor”. He may be right or he may be wrong but as a local birder I sincerely hope he is shown to be right.

    1. This is my first post on Mark’s blog. As a local to the Cotswold Water Park I felt compelled to respond given the negativity of some of the comments here….some, I imagine, from people who have not been there.

      In this instance by all means shoot the messenger but not the message. I don’t have much admiration for the recent conservation credentials of NE, National Parks, Forestry Commission or Defra itself BUT as long as receiving SSSI status does no harm, and hopefully some good, then what is not to like?

      It is true that the CWP is rather a mixed bag and Bob’s comments describe it well. Follow his advice and look at the CWP Birds site for the variety of species to be found. There are a huge number of lakes, and the fragmentation of the place is probably its strength. My personal experience is that the different uses of the land do not interfere with each other – and particularly not with the birdlife. It also does not interfere with those who are birding – with your binoculars locked on Great White Egrets who cares if it’s less than a mile from an active gravel pit?

      A couple of years ago I went on a dawn chorus walk organised by the CWP Trust. Apart from the pleasure of hearing all but one of the possible warblers we could have heard, a highlight for me was the ethos of the young farmer from whose farm the walk (and subsequent breakfast) was taken. His enthusiasm for the wildlife on his own land and the Trust’s land adjacent was very encouraging and he insisted on showing us his hay meadow which he was proudly managing for the flowers and wildlife. An example of business and nature happily cohabiting. Good breakfast too!

      So, I do welcome this initiative in the expectation that it should help to protect the nature in the Park as a whole.

  4. I am afraid I am deeply suspicious of NE actions. I think it is all part of pandering to Johnson’s propaganda to increase the amount of so called protected areas. From a purely scientific point of view (site of special Scientific interest ) does the area warrant the designation? I am not sure. From direct experience of talking to Johnson I would not trust a word this Government or its side kicks like NE says or does..

  5. Its fair enough to bash Natural England when they get something wrong…but I don’t think its fair to be miserable when they get something right! Looks to me like an entirely positive move.

    There’s a huge amount of work involved in an SSSI notification and the staff involved should be congratulated.

  6. I actually knew this site a little in the early eigthties when we lived in Gloucester and my dad worked as a lorry driver for an aggregates firm, I went out on his rounds with him a couple of times. There really wasn’t any development then (or that much wildlife either as far as I could see), but I’ve since heard that it’s exploded. Waterways are incredibly popular places to build houses, business and conference centres next to. There have been instances where restoring canals has even acted as a catalyst to redevelop brownfield sites which obviously helps keep concrete out of the green belt, but I think here the opposite is the case. Keep enough of the ‘green stuff’ so it keeps looking nice for the money coming in. Shouldn’t we be maximising habitat creation by minimising the footprint for new concrete as well? Are we getting some natural(ish) habitat as a pay off for development that really could have been on brownfield or otherwise have taken up less land?

    There is a planned waterway route between the Grand Union Canal at Milton Keynes and the Great Ouse at Bedford, boats will be able to travel between them and join the inland waterway network. Some wildlife habitat will be created, but the waterway is intended to spur development and house building alongside the shiny water, colourful canal narrowboats and hopefully kingfishers. It’s a lubricant, KY jelly if you will, to get development going in this part of the Oxford to Cambridge arc. The waterway would still have been good for its own sake without new build, but can we now only get projects like this with a trade off? It reminds me of some aspects of mitigation – if we can lay concrete at A we’ll plant shit loads of trees at B. In fact you may well have been able to create real wildlife habitat at both A and B while redeveloping brownfield at C which would have been a benefit for an existing community. Considering how much building is still being permitted on floodplains I don’t think it’s too cynical to say that lazy money grabbing is being put in front of careful land use, ecologically and otherwise.

    I know that one of the developments at CWP was for some ecohomes in a natural setting, beavers were proposed as one of its inhabitants and indeed there is an enclosed beaver colony within the CWP. The issue is that they were weekend/second homes – which doesn’t seem very eco to me, a bit like having the Prius and a Porsche. One of the byelaws meant that you couldn’t put out any washing to dry on a clothesline as that was regarded as unsightly rather than one of the best ways to save energy and cut carbon emissions and a pleasing sight to anyone who knows/cares about that. There’s an awful lot of green veneer that’s pure brown just a millimetre beneath and is highlighting SSSIs that contain lots of development a new part of that?

    1. Les, Dont forget that any development in this area has come about over the years without much protection. The SSSI will provide some protection in the event of future planning applications. In 40 square miles there is a multitude of habitat but from a birdwatching point of view it isnt all tucked away in one easily accessible reserve area.

      1. Bob, you and Greenfly make a fair point. I genuinely do not seek to take anything away from the efforts of Peter Holmes and the others you mention, and perhaps my experiences of CWP are not properly representative of the reality in the more out of the way parts of the SSSI. If only every SSSI was as well monitored and had similarly hard working champions looking out for them, I would have no basis for any wrong-side-of-the-bed cynicism about the PR angle here.

      2. That’s good Bob, but I get the very strong feeling generally conservation is held back until it can be used as a bargaining counter for development, especially development that really could be taking place where it would cause less damage, but might require a bit more effort. I live on the very edge of the greenbelt and lo and behold there are proposals for wetland creation to go with a major development there. Since when did we need to build entire housing estates before we could have a new largish pond?

        The Bedford to Milton Keynes Waterway project is very much a case in point – waterparks really there for the sake of development with a bit of ‘greening’ thrown in, some of it not of the highest standard https://www.bmkwaterway.org/. I know that one of the planning criteria for new town Milton Keynes was that higher buildings should not be built (this was the guidance at least even if not fully adhered to) so that with all the planted trees it would look wonderfully green you’d see their canopies rather than roofs. In fact this meant sprawl and far more land built upon than had to be the case and thereby less room for wildlife and trees. Not really green at all, but it looked all nice and green which was the point.

        Conversely there are stories that many parcels of land right on the very edge of urban areas are deliberately kept shoddy looking with piles of scrap, collapsed fencing etc so that there will be fewer objections to it getting sold off to developers for a pretty penny. There’s far too much superficiality and rather dirty tricks, and not enough factual and rational dialogue about planning/development in this country. It’s definitely a step forward if SSSI status is finally reining in what sounded like free for all development at the CWP.

  7. I used to fish Horseshoe Lake and Churn Pool at South Cerney for Rainbow trout in the late 80s. They were barely more than steep-sided holes in the ground at the time and the peace of summer afternoons was shattered by the noise of jetskis on a nearby lake. I can’t remember notable bird numbers or anything else very interesting apart from a couple of large carp basking and a crayfish under a boat aggressively waving its claws at a large inquisitive trout. There were other fly fishing lakes in the area with some dubious stocking ideas – I remember catching an ugly purple sock full of sand posing as an American Brook trout.

    No visit was complete without an All-Day Breakfast at the legendary Greasy Joe’s caff at Cirencester – a unique species that sadly has been allowed to become extinct.

    But it’s good to see that such a destructive activity as opencast gravel mining can mature into such diverse and beneficial assets – well done to the CWPT for their efforts. I find meself just a tad nonplussed as to why the extension of the SSSI will mean that “People and nature will be able to thrive side-by-side” – when they already clearly do so.

    1. The aggregate company my dad worked for had its own flooded gravel pit which provided fishing for employees. He planned to get the OK for me to fish there, but it never quite happened which is a shame because I think it would have been quite a nice little adventure for a 16 year old kid – I’ve yet to see a crayfish at 53. I imagine the area is full of mega expensive carp fisheries now.

  8. “Land specifically managed to meet the needs of leisure users also provides invaluable habitat that encourages wildlife to flourish, such as the sailing clubs which manage marginal areas as scrub, providing an excellent habitat for breeding birds.”

    “Cotswold Water Park is a key link in the Nature Recovery Network and a great example of how working with a wide range of partners allows people to enjoy sustainable recreational activities while enhancing and creating rich habitats for nature.”

    These two sentences from NE sum up perfectly why wildlife is declining throughout the UK. It’s a good bit of textual spin to appease the uninitiated; wildlife is very much at the bottom of the pile where human activity is concerned. But, perhaps the commercialisation of nature is the only option, which is left open to us?

    Our reserves are no better than theme parks, geared for us to gawk at nature, our National Parks are no better than holiday camps where Mrs Miggins can unleash her hounds of hell everyday to run amok. Hopefully, the more enlightened amongst you will understand that there has to be a better solution than this?

    1. Thomas – i find many of your comments here quite irritating, as you may have noticed, but we are on a similar page on this subject.

    2. Spot on. I feel there’s a wee message or sometimes even threat that if they don’t get what they want – housing estate, HS railway, warehouse – then we’ll not get even a few crumbs thrown our way in the form of sometimes dodgy ‘habitat’ creation that’s pretty often just green eye candy to disguise new development anyway. Hence the awfulness of lots of trees in plastic tubes jammed in approximately twelve to eighteen inches from each other you see on the periphery of business parks. There’s nothing to stop us starting large scale, high quality ecological restoration right now, in fact it should be a priority just in terms of flood prevention, but that’s just not happening. It’s a variety of narrow, established vested interests, rather than a greater public interest, that’s stopping it I’m sure.

  9. If anyone is still here and has the time – and who hasn’t? – and is sufficiently interested there is a lot of fascinating stuff about the CWP buried in this document: Cotswold Water Park Integrated Landscape Character Assessment Final Report – August 2009.

    Google – ISBN: 978-0-86080-536-6

Comments are closed.