Wildlife and conservation review 2002
Electricity Generation
Energy generation is always a problem. We rely on it, but it generally causes pollution (burning
fossil fuels) or poses unacceptable risk (nuclear), hence the recent initiatives to harness renewable
energy sources. One such is the wind, which again is not without its issues, particularly if turbines
arc located in scenic areas, or likely to impact on wildlife features. Offshore wind is currently seen
as having considerable potential, and the first Essex scheme, Gunfleet Sands (30 turbines) off
Clacton, has recently been given permission. In order to get through the regulatory process, an
Environmental Impact Assessment was carried out, which concluded that it will have little in the
way of adverse environmental impacts (on birds, seals, elasmobranchs, cetaceans, sandbank stability,
sedimentation etc). English Nature agreed with that assessment, and therefore we welcome the
scheme, especially given its likely knock-on benefits of creating an effective no-take zone, which
will then become a refuge for marine life. We expect more of these to come forward over the next
few years - but we counsel caution, as many other parts of coast, especially inshore, are potentially
much more sensitive.
Transport
Transport infrastructural development always has the potential to damage important wildlife sites,
but in general terms we should be more supportive of developments which promote more sustainable
forms of travel, such as railways. However, try telling that to the people of Thurrock where the
current Channel Tunnel Rail Link works have effectively turned a big chunk of the district into one
huge building site!
And new roads arc even more contentious. The current development of the A120 Braintree to
Stansted has destroyed a small part of the High Wood, Dunmow, SSSI, and bisected the Flitch Way
country park. Likewise the new A130 - this scheme attracted ecowarrior opposition, but is now
complete down to the A13. There may have been few significant ecological effects, but there are
concerns for the future. It leads straight to Canvey Island, and there is beginning to be talk about
and planning for one or two outer Thames crossings which have the potential to further damage the
key Thames-side wildlife habitats. This is one to watch.
Urban regeneration
Unfortunately, major urban regeneration proposals are often tied to damaging developments. A
case in point is at Colchester Hythe, where regeneration is seen as dependent upon the provision of
permanent water (achieved with a tidal barrage) on a river which is currently tidal. This has the
potential to affect nationally and internationally important areas downstream, for example by
changing tidal flows, and locally important wildlife sites upstream, such as The Moors, a county
wildlife site which includes a semi-tidal, brackish reedbed. We should always challenge such
schemes, based as they are on the outdated mindset that 'mud is bad, water is good'. And will the
costs, estimated at £6 million for the barrage alone, really be recouped through additional inward
investment? At its most basic, we cannot see the logic in promoting a scheme which 'celebrates the
maritime heritage', and then taking away the lifeblood of any maritime area - the tide. Examples
from elsewhere also cast doubt upon the likely success of this plan (Cardiff Bay comes to mind)
and Deptford Creek points towards a different solution - keep the river tidal and rebuild the human
community around its natural function and aspect.
Housing
The Thames Gateway initiative has long been talked about, a priority area for development being
in south Essex. Officially launched early 2003, as part of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's
sustainable communities initiative, it has a strong presumption of focusing development on to
Essex Naturalist (New Series) 20 (2003)
35