Councillor bombarded with complaints after wildlife pond ‘destroyed by developer’

Isle of Wight councillor for Newport East, Cllr Geoff Brodie, says he has been bombarded with complaints from residents over the weekend following the destruction of a wildlife pond.

The actions of housing developer, Barratts, have been slammed after the longstanding wildlife pond on Pan Country Park was destroyed as part of a drainage scheme.

Click on image to see larger version

Pan Country Park Wildlife Pond - After the destruction

The councillor explained that the Pan Meadows development “will ultimately extend nearly as far as this pond, but the country park is supposed to provide a buffer against urban creep”.

Boyd: “Just plain vandalism”
Commenting on Cllr Brodie’s Facebook post about the situation, ecologist Ian Boyd who worked hard to help make the Country Park a reality, said,

“The pond was never part of any attenuation design, it was outside the development red line and solely intended as part of the mitigating works for wildlife within the country park.

“It’s just plain vandalism and the developer needs to put the habitats back (that won’t help the immediate loss, but allows things to recolonise) and provide some sort of additional compensatory benefit for biodiversity within the country park.”

Before the works started
Tizzi Arnold who regularly walks her dogs in the country park said she was appalled by the devastation and shared this photo of the pond before the drainage works.

Click on image to see larger version

Before the destruction of the pond by Tizzi Arnold

Before the destruction of the pond by Tizzi Arnold

Brodie: It’s “like a marauding army devastating the countryside”
Cllr Brodie said,

“It seems to me that the only consideration Barratts give is to their shareholders, as they have repeatedly over the last eight years done everything in their power to annoy local people.

“Look back at the fires in the area a few years ago that burnt out wildlife. Or the recent unilateral blocking of a much-used bridleway that had to be re-routed.

“In this instance it seems a bit like a marauding army devastating the countryside.”

Click on image to see larger version

Pan Country Park Wildlife Pond - After the destruction

Cllr Brodie has now taken this issue up with senior IW Council officers and hopes to find out more early next week.

Update

A spokesperson for the Isle of Wight council said,

The Isle of Wight Council is investigating, as this work was not part of the agreed schedule with Barratts.”

Thanks to all the readers who got in touch with us about this incident.

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
5 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mambo
5, February 2016 9:42 am

Where are the petitions against these awful proposals?

Luisa Hillard
Reply to  Mambo
5, February 2016 12:40 pm

Anyone who wishes to object to a planning application can do so through the Iwight.com/planning website but they should be aware of what constitutes a valid planning objection.

Kev
5, February 2016 9:55 am

The only better gateway to/from the island is a fixed link, which has lots of support to go ahead,so this is just a waste of money!

smuttydog
5, February 2016 10:46 am

Don’t think you’ll find that about 5% of the IW population constitutes “lots of support”, Kevin.

Matt
Reply to  smuttydog
5, February 2016 6:28 pm

Not entirely sure where that 5% figure came from. Most petitions and canvassing tend to show a bit more support for fixed link than that

Luisa Hillard
5, February 2016 12:14 pm

Residents of East Cowes welcome improved traffic management but have concerns over some of the other claims by Red Funnel, particularly those surrounding employment and job creation. I am concerned that this article implies that by supporting this planning application residents may be able to improve the financial situation of the Council and therefore protect local services. It would have been more worthwhile to encourage residents to… Read more »

Chris irwin
5, February 2016 12:35 pm

This is nothing but a land grab! This will bring nothing to the town except more nose and traffic, at all hours of the day with your new marshalling yard. If you managed traffic correctly and stopped backing up the town ( on numerous occasions I have seen an empty car park and you baking traffic up York avenue) you could easily do what you are proposing… Read more »

Tosh
5, February 2016 2:55 pm

I just wonder were 200 jobs are coming from on this development ? is it from the new property’s that are or are not going to be built .There is no where on these plans for new company’s to start up or existing company’s to remain where the are .Also looking at there plans the entrance and exit to there new car/lorry park will send more traffic… Read more »

Luisa Hillard
Reply to  Tosh
5, February 2016 8:04 pm

@Tosh You have raised valid planning concerns that will need to be addressed through the planning process. The displacement of existing businesses is one of the main concerns of residents (and those businesses!). Combine this loss of industrial space with that happening in W. Cowes and there is a substantial impact on the marine industry on the Medina and for the Island. The businesses tell me that… Read more »

Tosh
Reply to  Luisa Hillard
6, February 2016 12:43 pm

@ Luisa The only deep water berth’s on our side of the river Medina are Trinity landing and the old westland site . Kingston is tidal and if this site was to be considered there would need to be dredging on this site that will not happen as this is a SSI site . As for the terminal entrance to RF’s new vehicle park this will cause… Read more »

Frank James
5, February 2016 3:26 pm

And we urge Red F. to stop trying to be greedy and destructive, to expand upwards on their own land if they want more room, to support successful local businesses by not closing them, to support local residents by not destroying their homes, and to prove their ‘beliefs’ that “there is no reason for current jobs to leave the Island” (when those affected say that there is)… Read more »

Tanja Rebel
5, February 2016 4:46 pm

Right, it’s time for a petition against this land grab, but FOR local businesses, FOR the right of people to remain in their houses and keep their local pub, FOR good air quality and FOR qualitative, sustainable development in tune with the wishes of local residents…

edward
5, February 2016 7:41 pm

the area that concerns me is the talk of compulsory purchase of the business and properties that would have to be demolished in order for the project to go ahead. it would mean that the council would have to be involved for the benefit of a for profit company.

davee
5, February 2016 8:19 pm

So the 11 million pound bribe from the SLEP to replace the chain ferry won’t affect the council’s decision then.

Luisa Hillard
Reply to  davee
5, February 2016 9:39 pm

@ davee The Council is due to receive £4 million towards a new floating bridge (but this may not be dependent on the whole project going forwards). Even so that cannot be allowed to influence the planning process and officers will make their recommendation based on national and local planning policy. The Council is also due to receive £3.5 million towards public realm improvements – supposedly upgrading… Read more »

beacher
5, February 2016 8:33 pm

Luisa, I’m confused. Red Funnel would seem to believe by their actions that presenting a petition of generic support will aid their planning application. If so then a petition from the opposite view point must have weight? I recently read that residents and councillers could oppose a planning application only on fact. ( where an application breached planning rules ?). I find it difficult to believe (… Read more »

Luisa Hillard
Reply to  beacher
5, February 2016 9:31 pm

@beacher You are right that opposition must be based on valid reasons and this would include any petition. However, I believe that one single response against can be more heavily weighted than a thousand others in favour if the single response contains valid objections, e.g: Loss of light or overshadowing Overlooking/loss of privacy Visual amenity (but not loss of private view) Adequacy of parking/loading/turning Highway safety Traffic… Read more »

Mark Francis
6, February 2016 10:06 am

Will these proposals make RF ferries cheaper, more frequent or in what way better?
I mean specifically apart from the PR jargon.
I would like cheaper if possible.

wightwitch
6, February 2016 2:35 pm

How desperate is Kevin George to have created this petition In support of the Red Funnel plans … he clearly realises that his arguments are really weak and that their plan whilst economically viable to their company will be detrimental to the economy of the Island as a whole. There are very few benefits for Islanders. The ferry service will NOT be improved … the crossings will… Read more »

solentman
Reply to  wightwitch
6, February 2016 7:03 pm

Well said wightwitch The only thing I would like to add is: The Island Council is having huge problems balancing its budget. The reason is “not enough money coming in”, We have too many people requiring Housing Benefit and Adult Social care. I pay £2000 a year in Council tax, and I have a company pension, so I am not a drain on the Council budget. Why?… Read more »

Geoff harris
6, February 2016 8:44 pm

Red funnel have already knocked down half of Dover road and now they don’t want it. Why didn’t they take the land where waitrose is and let waitrose have the car park they don’t want. What’s left of Dover road should be listed. I lived in number 4 from 1948 until 1951 and 2 of my aunts lived in number 3 until they both past away. I… Read more »

Andover
7, February 2016 12:33 am

Well said Wightwitch. Great points well made. If this council thinks that tourism in ferries and hotels will make them money they need to think again; as they’re singlehandedly killing off the tourism with their extortionate parking charges! If they think that anyone would want to come here, pay exorbitant ferry fares and then have to pay anothe 80 odd quid for a weeks parking to take… Read more »

beacher
7, February 2016 9:44 am

The more I read the more it seems that this is an unnecessary land grab by RF ( it may be in their thinking, all about future expansion and room to grow – for which I can’t blame RF ) however my overriding concern is the loss of real jobs. Jobs are jobs. , but RF proposals are only guesses – it might be slightly different if… Read more »

Cicero
7, February 2016 9:53 am

Regrettably “petitions”, “consultations” , “corporate apologies” etc are just Elastoplasts masquerading as democratic tools whereas the sole intention of those launching them is to cover up the increasing rottenness in UK governance no matter which party is in power.

beacher
7, February 2016 10:23 pm

Cicero , in essence I couldn’t agree more, but in some cases fight fire with fire. If RF present a petition of support with 500 signatories, (?I’ll be amazed if they get that without forcing all their employees to sign it). I have to believe that a counter petition with 2000 signatories will negate the RF petition. But obviously only if people bother to make the effort

Cicero
8, February 2016 7:01 am

True! So why not have a more generic petition that condemns both RF and WL for ripping-off Islanders- you might get 130,000 responses!

Sarah Turtle
11, February 2016 7:01 pm

https://www.change.org/p/oppose-red-funnel-plan-support-marine-employment-and-a-more-inclusive-plan-for-regeneration-of-the-east-cowes-waterfront?recruiter=59432990&utm_source=share_for_starters&utm_medium=copyLink

For those opposing you can sign the counter petition here. Let’s show Kevin George he can’t treat people the way he has done. Let’s stand up for those in our community whose live’s this is ruining.

Red Funnel Rebel
25, February 2016 8:08 am

East-Cowes is a charming place To live there is totally ace That is why it’s a blooming disgrace Red Funnel wants to level the place Lived-in houses, a charming pub Where you can get some welcome grub Are making way for a marshalling yard Who cares at all if it hits them hard? Not Red Funnel it seems to be It’s almost as if they do it… Read more »

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined