Representation by Robert Stephen Morris
- Date submitted
- 15 June 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
1- the proposal is designed to tick boxes to reduce carbon emissions. The point of reducing carbon emissions is to reduce the detrimental effect on the climate as well as to reduce pollution, for the benefit of mankind AND all life. To build a solution on an established and productive nature reserve (and parts affecting a nature reserve by way of significant shadow, noise, obscuring bird flight passage from the river, lighting and other significant disturbance) defeats the point. You cannot allow box ticking that causes as much detriment as it does benefit. 2- there is proposed mitigation land at the old golf course. (a) I understand that this land was already allocated as mitigation land for an earlier (Thames Water Authority) scheme so allocating it again is not valid and (b) even if it had not been allocated before, calling it mitigation land now won’t change anything for nature species; they already use it and won’t use it any more than at present if it is regarded as mitigation land for the proposed scheme. That is cheating. 3- as I understand it, the scheme appears to have a relatively short useful life in relation to the long time it will take to build and at the end, to decommission. The impact on nature is therefore not just the impact of the built, working scheme. 4- there is so, so little left of the habitat known as Thames grazing marshes. It may look like just a few acres of land being sacrificed, but so much has been lost over the decades that the remaining elements, particularly there at Crossness where the success at a surviving habitat for nature is evident and recorded, are of great value, however handy they may look for built development. Note that the above comments are for objective reasons. This isn’t just nimbyism.