Good to hear you some time
RE Southport Visiter, August 10.
How can the recent GP patients survey find that 87% (of GP surgeries in the area) be defined as “good” when it is impossible to get through to a medical centre by telephone – and, if you later are successful, only to be told that all appointments have gone.
Dr Rob Caudwell (NHS Southport & Formby Climical Commissioning Group) should look again before making the comments he has. David Smith Southport
FOLLOWING the recent article reporting on the proposal for the creation of a tidal lagoon in Southport I am writing to express my concerns on the impact this will have on the resort, the wildlife that relies on the coastal habitats, and the regional tourism that this wildlife generates.
I draw your attention to the Wildlife Trust response to the approval of the Swansea development, which recommends: ‘‘The Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon should be seen as a test case for a new type of development, in which there is still uncertainty about the environmental impacts, as much of the impact assessment work was based on modelling.
‘‘Therefore we want to see the proposed mitigation strictly adhered to, and we believe that monitoring should be carried out over a number of years before any other lagoons are built.’’
This response also recognises the need for the right technology in the right place and I have deep concerns that a the construction of the proposed lagoon would represent the exact opposite for Southport, particularly with reference to the wildlife impact.
The RSPB response to the Swansea lagoon included concerns that lagoons are a “high-risk” technology and could potentially cause the loss of habitats for wildfowl and other birds, the “risk of mortality to fish and other animals that pass through the turbines” and could interfere with the sediment flows throughout the estuary.
I believe these concerns would be equally valid for Southport as part of the Ribble estuary wetlands system; as such Southport forms part of one the most important places for birdlife in Europe and is relied on by internationally significant numbers of ducks, geese, swans and wading birds.
I am concerned that the changes to the tidal flow, availability of mudflats/saltmarsh habitats for feeding, roosting and nesting will lead to the loss of numbers of species of birds that are already endangered (RSPB red or amber status) including black tailed godwit, pink footed goose, lapwing, and wigeon.
Although the carrot of the production of new jobs and investment were dangled I fear the reality would be that many of the jobs in the immediate future would require specialist skills and would probably be filled by existing staff of companies who successfully bid for the contracts.
Regarding investment I understand that many investors related to the Swansea project are reportedly considering to delay investment. I have doubts how attractive this Southport proposal would be.
I hope that any proposal will be subject to a full environmental impact assessment, using a number of years’ data gathered from any lagoon created in Swansea, and with guidance from The Wildlife Trust and RSPB.
To close, I use words from an article printed on page 28 of the same issue of your paper and hope that this coast continues to be a haven for wildlife that it is today. Helen Rimmer
REGARDING the story about the Fisherman’s Crossing closure, may I suggest a possible solution: