Critics speak out over estuary scheme
Opponents of plans, approved last week, to flood a Devon estuary have their say. Margaret Yerrell, who opposed the scheme, collated their comments
IT was astonishing that East Devon District Council planning committee reached unanimous approval of the Lower Otter Restoration Project proposal, which we believe contravenes at least five strategies of their own Local Plan.
“In doing so they demonstrated disdain for local democracy by dismissing risks identified by the local parish councils and many residents in favour of accepting untested assurances by the Environment Agency (EA),” said one opponent, a retired project manager. Another local opponent, a retired educationalist, added that they believed the responsibility for the outcomes of the major scheme – with unpredictable and irreversible changes which will allow the lower reaches of the estuary to flood – will lie squarely with East Devon District Council.
While presented as ‘working with Nature,’ we believe that in reality the scheme will destroy the freshwater habitat of many species such as owls, bats, badgers, deer and fish forever. In addition we fear our natural helpers, the beavers, will disappear. Overall there will be a net loss of diversity. Describing himself as a ‘local wildlife watcher’, another opponent of the scheme claims that “anyone who has the interest and tenacity to examine the finer details of this project will see that it will not enhance the wildlife habitat or diversity of the estuary”.
Another local resident says he is furious that the representative from the district council said at the planning meeting that “the current wildlife is not of unusually high value”. Three of the species which will be lost are rare and protected by law. Are these less ‘valuable’ than the possible three to four species of wading bird which might appear after between three and eight years?
One local bird spotter, recently watching the existing teal and curlews on the estuary, described the behaviour of the Lower Otter Restoration
Project proposers as ‘arrogant’, and said that “a road raised to eight feet with a huge bridge over a confined river would be an eyesore, not a natural valley”.
We say that even the proposers admit that the scheme will not lessen flood risk. At the same time they insist that unless we allow this project now there will be catastrophic flooding. A vehement local opponent adds: “Nor will it reduce the risk of sea encroachment due to climate change – indeed it will achieve precisely the opposite.” The faster flowing river will erode the eastern part of the historic shingle pebble bar, allowing the sea to enter. In the opponents’ view Met office predictions do not support the assertions of those behind this scheme.
At no time has there been any mention of what we believe are the conflicts of interest within EA or their own practice of ‘independently’ reviewing the reports of their consultants. In our view the most glaring omission of the proposal was the reluctance to carry out a properly independent risk assessment.
And risks there are.
Flooding is an obvious one, but the local drinking water could be affected as salt water reaches the aquifers. The unlined landfill site could also leach all manner of poisonous substances to them. Access to an unpolluted water supply is fundamental and rather than discuss whether the risk is low or medium/adverse, and what remediation measures might need to be taken, public authorities are obliged to respect the precautionary principle of considering the worst case scenario to avoid harm.
There is public anger at the way in which the planning decision was taken. One critic from the local community asserts that the lack of public engagement prior to submission of the proposal contravened EDDC’s own community and engagement policy particularly as regards the inability of those without internet access to engage meaningfully. Other local residents criticised the planning officers and one wondered just how the councillors “voted for this wilful destruction”.
The last word belongs to another local campaigner who said that “this disingenuous scheme is environmental vandalism, which will have huge effects on the area forever”.
‘Anyone who examines the finer details of this project will see that it will not enhance the wildlife habitat’