People versus birds: Battle lines are drawn over flooding plan for Lower Clyst Valley
An environmental conflict billed as "people versus birds" has broken out over plans to allow sea waters to flood fields near Exeter and create a new inter-tidal habitat.
The Environment Agency (EA) and the RSPB want to conduct a "managed retreat" from farmland close to the River Exe, near Topsham, ending years of protection against rising sea levels.
-
Nigel Cheffers-Herd, who has accused the Environment Agency and the RSPB of employing Orwellian 'Newspeak' to describe the plan for the lower Clyst Valley, near Exeter Picture: Richard Austin
-
The main road between Clyst St George and Topsham was closed by flooding after the River Clyst broke its banks in November. Businesses fear a repeat if the fields next to the river are allowed to flood in the future
-
Michael Dart, of Darts Farm, is not impressed with the plan to allow flooding near his family's business
Local residents and businessmen claim that abandoning the Lower Clyst Valley and simply letting nature take its course threatens to inundate a major route into the city ten times a year on spring tides.
Officials say EU laws require lost habitats to be replaced but locals say there is plenty of mud in the estuary.
From Monday to Friday,
Come and enjoy our special menu at £12 per person for 3 course-meal.
Terms:
Not in conjunction with any other offers.
From Monday to Friday for lunch and dinner.
Subject to availability.
Contact: 01752 424381
Valid until: Wednesday, July 31 2013
Nigel Cheffers-Heard, who lives at the 16th century Bridge Inn beside a crossing over the Clyst connecting Exeter with the east of the Exe estuary, said years of conflict had boiled down the simple question: which is more important – birds or people?
Mr Cheffers-Heard said the EA and the RSPB were employing Orwellian 'Newspeak' to describe a "land grab" which would actually result in "habitat destruction".
"We who live in the Lower Clyst are very aware of the need to balance the competing requirements of the environment, wildlife, farming, commerce, and local infrastructure. It comes down to people versus birds and I will always go for the people."
The project is part of a greater Exe Estuary plan, which proposes to "hold the line" at some points along the tidal river with "managed realignment" at others.
Opponents claim that flooding prime farm land is "madness" at a time when food production needs to rise to feed a growing population.
The owners of Darts Farm and shop, where Ruby Red cattle graze the adjoining fields of Topsham flats, also fear the scheme.
Michael Dart said: "The cost of this is that the people of Topsham and east Devon could see their futures drastically affected."
The Environment Agency and the RSPB claim that rising sea levels were eroding birds' natural habitats but have promised that the main road will be protected as part of the scheme.
Campaigners against the scheme say studies by consultants for the EA predict the road is likely to flood about 10 times a year on spring tides. They says a protection scheme could cost around £10 million and could not be justified for the "theoretical protection of a few birds" during a time of austerity.
The RSPB said "iconic" wading birds such as avocets, which are regularly seen on the River Clyst, and black-tailed godwits, needed help.
Spokesman Tony Whitehead said: "We want to do the best by the wildlife in a very special place."
The EA said it was looking at options to improve flood protection to the road.
"This could be done by raising the road on a causeway or building new embankments," a spokesman added.
A consultation on the Exe plan closes on Monday.
6 Comments
by BobFurlow
Monday, March 18 2013, 4:47PM
“The 'Save The Clyst' campaign is very unimpressive. Lots of emotive rhetoric but little or no substance, facts, and science. It looks like bog standard NIMBYism.
Nigel Cheffers-Herd is misrepresenting why the scheme is being proposed. It is not "people versus birds", it is clearly "people and environment versus rising sea levels due to global warming". So either Nigel doesn't understand - which would be puzzling given how many years he has been obsessed with this - or he is being dishonest.
Or perhaps he is a climate science denier and does not accept that sea levels are rising and will continue to rise in the coming decades at enormous cost to humanity.
There may be good arguments for not flooding the Clyst Valley, but Nigel's 'Save The Clyst' campaign has not delivered them.”
by bullocks400
Friday, March 01 2013, 7:48PM
“More madness. Main point here is the EA and RSPB trying to keep talking up their, "we can save the world" status. The environmental and wildlife charities, trusts and such have as much interest in their own empires, salaries and security as they do in the things they pretend to protect. Times are hard, they need curbing before they cause even more damage to the environment and to business.”
by andybut71
Friday, March 01 2013, 10:27AM
“Very interesting and informative article on subject that needs as much exposure as possible! I can personally vouch for the chaos caused by the November flooding as our company work just across the road from the Bridge and the main access route was blocked for ours and several other businesses for several days!! The main exmouth road traffic was backed up for miles and the traffic chaos extended right up to Middlemore Roundabout and beyond!! We are also very fortunate in viewing the estuary up to the Bridge Inn from our office window and see numerous bird species including Avocets, Godwits and other species on a regular basis throughout the day and they seem to be thriving with the status quo!!”
by orville
Friday, March 01 2013, 9:54AM
“Excellent article, I appreciate birds in the locality but this scheme seems like absolute madness to me on many levels. The amount of money being spent pursuing the scheme would be far better spent elsewhere”
by nigelch
Friday, March 01 2013, 9:10AM
“Actually dummyboy, the Environment Agency and RSPB want all of us to pay for it to flood. They have already spent around a million pounds on this, and got nothing to show for it.”
by dummyboy
Friday, March 01 2013, 8:06AM
“If residents want to pay to keep it from flooding themselves then fine, if they want the rest of us pay for it, let it flood!”