9th August
This week we’ve been shocked by outbreaks of unrest and violence, sparking further thoughts about causes and ways to keep a balance between polarised views.
History repeats itself
My Mum, like many of her generation, swore by cooking with a pressure cooker. But a sealed pan, in which you brew up to boiling point and keep cooking, definitely requires some skill and experience in the management side of things. A pressure release valve is a critical component that should regulate and release excess pressure accumulating during cooking. However, if the valve malfunctions, it can fail to release the built-up pressure effectively. As a result, the pressure inside the cooker can rise to dangerous levels, exceeding its structural limits and overwhelming safety features and potentially leading to an explosion.
Is this what has been happening in Britain again? I started my hunt for background … between many choices good ol’ Wikipedia provided the best summary/comparison at a glance. I was really astonished to see the similarities between the 2 headings, and it has definitely encouraged me to think further about polarisation.
This was then …
A series of riots took place between 6 and 11 August 2011 in cities and towns across England, which saw looting and arson, as well as mass deployment of police and the deaths of five people.
The protests started in Tottenham Hale, London, following the killing of Mark Duggan, a local Black man who was shot dead by police on 4 August.
And here is Now – Far-right riots and anti-immigration protests have taken place in England, Wales and Northern Ireland[a] since 30 July 2024. They followed a mass stabbing in Southport on 29 July, in which three children were killed. The attacker was falsely alleged on social media to be a Muslim and/or an asylum seeker. The riots have involved racist attacks, arson and looting.
The common element here was a trigger, a match to set everything alight, both focused around a tragic death or deaths. What has been worse than the 2011 situation is a) the role of social media helping gangs to organise and b) the almost accepted development in our time of false accusations, actions based on total indifference to factual accuracy and truth. Understanding root causes takes effort, lots of study and thought. These qualities, sadly, are missing not only from the lazy perpetrators (some now in jail & very much regretting their folly), but also – too often – the instigators and implementers of government policy.
Plymouth example
The wall of police picture was taken by my son, who now works at the Theatre Royal. He has described to me not only the reluctant decision to cancel their show, but the impact afterwards where all staff and supporters pulled together to clean up and lower the level of fear. This is the largely unsung story of local resilience, the more positive side. Being on the same spot, it reminded me to take a look again at the story of insane destruction of trees, by the council last year, and find out what local collaboration has achieved since.
In February, Plymouth City Council approved a new scheme including 202 trees for the site at a cost of up to £36.8m. The plans include a “destination” play village, seating for about 500 people and “greatly improved” CCTV to deter anti-social behaviour in the area.
The council said it would be funded through the Transforming Cities Fund, the Climate Emergency Investment Fund and from “existing resources available within the current capital programme”.
More than 100 trees were cut down in 2023 to make way for the original regeneration plans which had a budget of £12.7m. A resident, Ms White took the council to the High Court arguing that the original tree-felling had been unlawful. Her case was dismissed in March, with the judge saying it was “academic” as a new scheme was now set to go ahead. The BBC understands Ms White has filed for permission to appeal against that dismissal with a decision yet to be made by the court.
Correspondence and repercussions
It seems I misjudged either the tone or content last week, or both. I was striving to show that re-wilding projects should not be implemented without full understanding of the particular area of ground to be changed. I confess also to being motivated by my personal frustration that the top people at Cornwall Wildlife Trust ignored the input of myself and other history and environment experts, provided through multiple channels (on a walk, at their own meetings and via emails), that clearly spelled out the concerns about our valley.
Message 1
Hi Caroline
I have been reading your latest blog about the Tor to Shore. I am very much in favour of it but acknowledge that it will not work without consultation and cooperation with interested parties.
However, I would take issue with your suggestion that CWT should be addressing the issue of heavy metal contamination on Redmoor and Breney Common.
Cornwall has many sites displaying extraordinary adaptations to an industrial past. Species unique to such areas have evolved to process or tolerate contaminants, creating thriving ecosystems. I don’t think anyone should be attempting to erase the legacy of Cornwall’s mining history because it has added to the richness of the county’s biodiversity.
Talk soon
My answer – You have definitely caught me out on that, thank you! I was forgetting, in the pressure of the moment, my own report on the ways nature has adapted along the Red River.
https://themeadowbarns.co.uk/gf-blog-24-week-23/ A further surprise in the programme is to learn that the Red River contains a genetically-unique population of brown trout that has evolved to survive its toxic environment. These fish are as much artefacts of the industrial revolution as Cornish engine-houses!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0014zrj/cornwalls-red-river
However, I believe that on the west side of Par River valley (not the same as Helman Tor/Redmoor of course) where we can anticipate the soon-to-arrive issue of lithium mining waste and know that Citizen Scientists are already very unhappy with pollution levels, surely it makes sense to adapt a unique historic structure that could help clean up both land and water?
Message 2
I really think that taking an adversarial and polarised stance re opinions of farmers and CTNC is unhelpful. It’s the kind of mentality which divides, creates tensions and an atmosphere far from the one conducive to sharing ideas and creating solutions to pressing issues.
As one of the farming community you may feel compelled to use this platform to voice their concerns but I think you may alienate some of your green hearts with your tone. Bon chance …
Dear Reader, I am not going to apologise just yet, because I need to meditate on how right you are in your comments. I have spent all week dwelling on your observations and eventually remembering the various other re-wilding projects that have aroused not just tensions, but red rage .. for instance, the drastic change and threats to livelihoods in West Penwith, when Natural England put their farms into an SSSI. Their rage was not unlike the feelings of some protesters in Plymouth and other cities these past few days.
From this reflection I moved on to pondering a scheme in Wales 5 years ago, that has numerous close similarities with ours:-
i) The name – Summit to Sea … whereas ours is Tor to Shore
ii) The big spend – £3.4m originally allocated … whereas ours is starting at £265,000 pointing to over £3m ‘potentially’ in the longer term
iii) The inadequacy of public consultation, telling local landowners what should happen, instead of listening to their ideas and concerns
Now, here is the clincher … Summit to Sea project collapsed, when various partners pulled out. The management were forced to re-think and learn a few lessons, the hard way.
- we should have communicated more widely that the project was to be community led and owned.
- “We’ve learnt some invaluable lessons about how to do this in the most effective way.”
Most times I aim to provide you with my own summary of text from relevant sources, however here I am going to serve you up long chunks from a journalist, David Gregory-Kumar, reporting for the BBC back in 2019, because it is so well written and relevant:- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c01e2673yydt
It seems we live in divided times but even so it seems strange to say there’s a nature conservation idea out there that is wildly controversial
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-50169027
Seen as either vital and brilliant or seductive and horrific depending which side of the debate you are on. But such are the passions aroused by rewilding.
I’ve been fascinated by rewilding ever since I chaired a debate on the topic for BBC Farming Today. At its heart, it’s a simple idea. Our current approach to nature conservation doesn’t seem to be working with about 40% of species in decline, so why not try something really radical instead?
And that’s where rewilding comes in. We step back and leave nature to recover on its own. Who could object to that?
So for Inside Out I’ve been looking at the battle over rewilding and seeing if nature conservationists in the Midlands might offer a way out of the angry impasse over the issue?
Wolves and bears
One of the biggest problems with rewilding as a concept is what does it actually mean? Charity Rewilding Britain, were at pains to explain to me that is doesn’t mean rounding up people and removing entire communities from the landscape to be replaced by wolves and bears.
Supporters of rewilding say there’s nothing natural about this landscape. Instead, they say any rewilding project will be very long term. Allowing the restoration of ecosystems till the point where they can take care of themselves. So maybe one day wolves might possibly return but there’s decades of work ahead of that.
For Inside Out I went to see the site of Rewilding Britain’s biggest project; Summit to Sea, in Wales. At the moment this is mainly a landscape shaped by upland farming, so that means plenty of sheep. You might think this sort of familiar countryside is beautiful, even breathtaking but for core fans of rewilding all those sheep and the farmers that own them are keeping a firm lid on biodiversity. Remove the sheep and the landscape would return to a thriving, more natural state.
And here’s where the conflict comes in because you won’t be surprised to learn that those sheep farmers who live and work within this area feel their entire way of life is under threat from the project. As one said to me, he can see why it’s such a seductive idea, but actually he knows this landscape and removing the sheep will make things worse not better in his view. More than that, how would we feel if someone came into Birmingham and told us to knock down that tower block and let nature take over?
Shropshire
While we were filming it was clear the arguments around the Summit to Sea plans were coming to a head and indeed just a few days ago Rewilding Britain announced that in the face of strong local opposition they are pulling out of the project. It’s unclear what form the £3m plan will now take.
But in the Midlands have we found another way? In Shropshire I went to see how experts from the Wildlife Trust there are changing the landscape to help a newly discovered colony of pine martens while at the same time taking account of the needs of the people that live and work here.
It’s a middle way in the rewilding debate that relies on linking rewilded areas with green corridors for wildlife to use. And perhaps it’s an idea that Rewilding Britain might be using in the future. According to their blog post announcing their withdrawal from the Summit to Sea project they’re now exploring rewilding on a smaller scale. Just like we see in Shropshire.
[Watch BBC Inside Out at 1930 on BBC One on Monday 28th October 2019].
- The lead partner of a £3.4m project aimed at restoring the countryside to its natural state has pulled out following criticism from the community. Firm pulls out of £3.4m countryside project
Summit to Sea aims were to increase biodiversity and restore ecosystems in 10,000 hectares of mid Wales and almost 30,000 hectares of sea in Cardigan Bay.
But farmers were left angry saying it would be impossible for them to continue living in their communities. As a result, Rewilding Britain has become the second partner to pull out.
A statement confirmed the decision followed feedback from community members and farmers’ unions who were unhappy with the charity’s involvement.
- “While Summit to Sea held a series of face-to-face meetings and consultations locally, we should have communicated more widely that the project was to be community led and owned.
- “We’ve learnt some invaluable lessons about how to do this in the most effective way.”
- Summit to Sea director Melanie Newton said the views of local people were “vital to the partnership”.
- In September, Machynlleth-based Ecodyfi withdrew its support saying it had “increasingly been disturbed by the change of attitude to the project in the farming-connected community on which we largely depend”.
- Powys councillor for Glantwymyn, Elwyn Vaughan, who has welcomed both withdrawals, said: “I am hopeful that it marks the start of a successful partnership between the people of mid Wales and Summit to Sea.”
What came next
A new spirit of humbleness is to the fore in the introduction and film at the very different replacement website, changing the name Summit to Sea to tircanol, which means ‘Middle Ground’ https://tircanol.cymru
Their Blue Print (one that I could sign up to without any hesitation) says ..
We heard from local people about a deep desire to positively engage with the challenges of the future, to think global and act local, not to react to the agendas and narratives of others, but to build on the best of what we have.
To learn from and develop on our rich history within our landscape, to learn together and take advantage of the opportunities for additional learning that lie both locally and far further afield, and consequently to innovate and join-up locally, in order to have impact at scale.
It’s about collaboration within an empowered community, giving local people control and ownership of their own priorities. It’s about sharing our practices, learning and knowledge with pride to collectively improve our area for nature, for ourselves, for our guests and customers, and for future generations.
We have a responsibility on behalf of those who took part in the co-design process to secure funding to deliver the Blueprint. This will probably mean a variety of grant funding, crowd funding, private investment and income generating activity.
Cornwall Wildlife Trust latest
One of their most devoted volunteers came here for a chat and a cuppa earlier in the week. She has become rather upset, as changes to rotas and activities have been implemented with no discussion, and very quickly too. She described how much she values being part of the team, for her own mental health, and has always enjoyed the cameraderie of the regular schedule they have jointly evolved. This again hints to me that CWT are getting ahead of themselves, forgetting the most vital aspect of their operations … people, in their enthusiasm for the Tor to Shore slogan and £s.
Film 3 – Disasters and a new possibility
It is now abundantly clear that the film about water is not one film, but many. So far I have completed: –
Part A about UNESCO and World Heritage Sites in general
Part B about the 4 elements of Outstanding Universal Value here
Part C called ‘Cleaning up the River’ – many local voices, with greater depth of understanding than any Environment Agency or other official body can muster
Halfway to being done is Part D, called ‘Disasters, past, present and potentially future’. As I wrestled with the conflicting interests and problems, eventually I came to a Eureka moment. It is an idea (like the one described in Shropshire) for a type of wildlife corridor. But this one will be very unique, tailored to the special elements of the valley, experimental and hopefully worthy of high-level research. Something again of Outstanding Universal Value. Should be done ready for next week’s edition.
An apology or not?
On balance, I think no. I am reading the runes correctly, flagging up concerns that are valid.
One final word, if you have been following the Desal story … it is now a Legal Challenge moment, I am guessing it may be the first of a few, though I greatly hope I am wrong and the Council will see sense.
Cornwall Council’s flawed screening opinion
South West Water are pushing ahead with their development plans on the basis that it is `permitted development’ (as per their email on Friday 3rd May). They told us at their July `drop-in’ sessions that Phase One (including the 13.2 km landline) will take ‘around a year to build’ and require a 20 metre access road either side of the pipeline during construction. That’s a 40m swathe along most of its 13.2 km length during construction!
You might ask, what makes this ‘permitted development’? The answer….. because Cornwall Council said an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is not required.
We questioned this decision with Cornwall Council’s Planning department (no response) and the Secretary of State for the Environment (unhelpful response).
So, we engaged legal support to help formally challenge this decision. On 5th August, Matthew McFeeley of Richard Buxton Solicitors emailed the named planning officers on Cornwall Council’s flawed decision response (Jack Bromley and Louise Wood). We attach the letter he sent for you to read in full – take a look! We await Cornwall Council’s response! * send me a message if you want the whole letter. It covers a lot of technical points, pointing out numerous contradictions and anomalies.
We’ve been fortunate enough to have legal support from the Environmental Law Foundation. So far, including the attached letter and our Marine Management Licence Application objection, we’ve spent around £900 on legal costs, which means our funds have almost gone. We’re so grateful for the generous support many of you have already given. However, if you’ve been meaning to donate but haven’t quite got round to it, now would be a great time!
Bank: NatWest Business Current Account Account Name: Desalination Information Group
Account number: 88913996 Sort code: 60-17-01
Thanks for your ideas and offers of support to raise funds, which are always welcome! We’re working on some fundraising events including an art exhibition/sale of more marine themed pieces, a quiz evening and possibly a Cornish dance night. We’ll keep you posted!
