By Dr Sally Prime
I have lived in West Oxford since 1981, first in Botley, then after a brief sojourn in East Oxford, I moved with my family to North Hinksey in April 1992. My two sons have now settled in Oxford with their families.
In 1982 I was employed as software engineer for Oxford Research Systems and I implemented all aspects of computer control, data acquisition, Fourier analysis, data processing, graphical display and user interface for the world’s first high field Magnetic Resonance Imaging instruments.
Subsequently, I moved to Oxford GlysoSciences, ultimately as Director of Bioinformatics with responsibility for development, delivery and support of novel Proteomics databases and data mining applications for major pharmaceutical company customers and internal target discovery research.
I am currently self-employed and involved in a range of charitable and music-related projects.
It makes no sense to continue destroying natural habitats when they could help us – nature’s fantastic ability to trap carbon safely and provide other important benefits is proven.
https://www.bbowt.org.uk/nature-based-solutions
Channel construction - context
Oxford Meadow SAC (Special Area of Conservation) includes vegetation communities that are possibly internationally unique, reflecting the influence of long-term grazing and hay-cutting on lowland hay meadows.
National planning policy framework Chapter 15 states that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment in a number of ways, including by minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity. Paragraph 180 (a) sets out that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused. Paragraph 180 (c) indicates that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused, unless there are
wholly exceptional reasons (The example given is infrastructure projects, where the public benefit would clearly outweigh the loss or deterioration of habitat.) AND a suitable compensation strategy exists.
This leaves us with two problems.
- How do you weigh public benefit vs. loss or deterioration of habitat.
- What counts as a suitable compensation strategy for the loss of irreplaceable habitats?
Solving this cannot be an exact science, and we are learning more all the time about the value of nature as I mentioned before.
I suggest maintaining traditional management (hay cutting and gathering and in Hinksey Meadow aftermath cattle grazing). This conserves the distinctive lowland meadow landscape characteristics and biodiversity, for example willow-fringed streams, colourful flower meadows, hedgerows and clumps of shrubs supporting bird life with berries and insects with nectar, and all manner of creatures with shelter. And let’s encourage traditions that we have already established – e.g. stream clearance and litter picking, bird feeding and wildflower population monitoring.
Graham Scholey remarks in his proof of evidence:
“The construction of the two-stage channel does however necessitate unavoidable impacts on existing landscape and habitats, and these are undoubtedly matters of great import which require full justification given the ecological value of some of those features, and the impact on landscapes which are cherished by the local community. This raises the bar to the highest level in terms of Scheme justification and consideration of alternatives…”
What are the consequences from mechanical removal of many acres (how many?) of grassland, creating service roads, digging out pond and swales. This is called in the Environmental Statement section 1.1 “creation of new and/or improved habitat for wildlife”. There is no mention of the act of destroying so much of the existing habitat and wildlife in service of the 2nd stage channel with its swales and ponds.
This is a landscape-scale experiment. It’s one thing to lower the level of the Thames by diverting flow via an extra channel through the flood plain, and quite another to build a second stage channel. There may be a place for creating more wetland habitat in the Thames catchment, but this is not the right place. The damage that this terraforming will inflict is horrendous to contemplate. When nature is finally left alone to try and mend the wounds, we can count the cost.
Threatened habitats.
Trees and streams
Willows spring up constantly on all the stream banks. Where branches fall, new stems spring up. There is a tendency for branches to fall into streams which blocks flow. Neighbours set up a local group to tackle blocked stretches of the Hinksey stream to make it easier for water to flow and for the children to do their canoeing with very successful results around the North Hinksey bridge over the Hinksey Stream, in the bottom of The Fishes' Garden and under the old stone bridge at willow walk. The conveyance of water through the meadows would benefit from regular maintenance of stream flows and banks, also with an eye to removing Himalayan Balsam by strimming in season wherever it occurs.
“Unimproved” Grassland
This category includes most of the grassland between Willow walk and South Hinksey, except for some fenced off fields used in recent times for sheep rearing and horse grazing.
The change in farming practices was encouraged by EU policy. The land was used for more widespread grazing. In some areas, grass was a monoculture sown and fertiliser applied. Mowed annually for hay. It is now no longer used for grazing. Grass is still cut and gathered annually, but no further seeding or fertilising takes place to my knowledge.
I observe that plant diversity has significantly increased over past 5 or 6 years, e.g. I collected 6 different species of grass flowers in a single walk last summer. New species of meadow flowers are appearing each year. E.g. red and white clover, vetch, ox-eye daisy, knapweed, meadowsweet, buttercup, dandelion, yellow rattle, yarrow, different umbellifers (I can’t name them all, e.g. wild carrot), and more.
Fauna
All creatures need places to live and breed. They need undisturbed places to nest and raise their young, and safe food and water sources. These are supplied in abundance along the stream edges especially in the tall trees and the underbrush. If you cut down a tree, you are destroying the actual home of many creatures, particularly insects and birds. You are removing their food source of nectar in their flowers for insects, and their autumn and winter fruits for birds. This will lead to hunger, insecurity breeding failure and death.
Birds: (to name just a few)
Herons, swans, red kites, Tawny owls, (woodpecker now rare), gulls, jackdaws, magpies, rooks, kingfisher, mallard, geese, wood pigeon, ring-necked pigeon, missel thrush, thrush, wagtail, blackbird, tit various, sparrow, skylark, robin, wren, dunnock, goldcrest,
Small mammals:
mice, rats, squirrels, hedgehogs, bats
Larger mammals:
Fox, Muntjac, Roe Deer, Otters, Badgers
Also I have noticed:
amphibians, fish, butterflies, beetles, damsel flies
People:
I would say most people have had enough of the large scale construction projects that surround us, making our daily journeys stressful and unpredictable and blighting the landscape. Yes, there is sympathy for those whose homes have been flooded in the past, but for the vast majority this is not the case.
The main business activities in North Hinksey Village since I have lived here have been based on horse stabling, grazing and riding. Not so long ago we lost the largest business, run by Pat Halliday (now deceased). Her beneficiaries continued to run it for a few years, and then redeveloped the property to form the impressive Halliday Lane development in North Hinksey Lane. They indicated to me that they gave up in the face of what was to come with OFAS. We have now heard with great sadness that Aylin’s stables are also to close for good. So there will be no more horses in North Hinksey, a change that affects us profoundly, and also affects all the people who have loved to come to ride in the meadows.
Overall the effect on people is major adverse. As knowledge and understanding of the scheme has increased through our publicity, so people have volunteered support for our efforts to persuade the EA to change course. We have had at least 137 donations (and counting) to help pay for our research and legal fees. And widespread goodwill from the community who see me regularly in Willow Walk with my dog, often trying to mend our banners from the ravages of the wind. (The one in the trees is now beyond repair. I’ll take it down as soon as I can).
Climate Breakdown
Since we are considering climate related effects on flood risk, let us also consider the consequences of drought. It seems to me that removal of 2000++ mature trees and the scouring of the land surface is a very poor way to prepare for this problem. With loss of shade, and loss of mature plants to protect the soil and draw water with their deep roots we might end up in a dust bowl, and the danger of wild fires must be taken seriously.
The ponds and swales will provide ideal breeding conditions for mosquitos. We hear today of a major health concern from being bitten by infected invasive mosquitos. Regular cases of dengue fever may be expected in years to come. Cases have already been detected in France. Do we really want this in our backyard?
Finally, I would urge you to recommend further genuine efforts by the EA to find a way forward without the channel, or at least without the second stage channel and wetlands components.
11.12.2023