Latest news with #SpecialScientific
Wales Online
a day ago
- General
- Wales Online
Protest held at Cosmeston Lake against controversial plans for water park
Protest held at Cosmeston Lake against controversial plans for water park Young and old gathered to raise concerns around the protected site losing its wildlife habitats Protestors gathered at the lake this morning (Image: Taite Johnson ) Young and old came together to protest against controversial plans to set up a water park at a quiet, country lake. People in Penarth and the wider Vale of Glamorgan area demonstrated their anger towards the council, raising their concerns for the wildlife and biodiversity at Cosmeston Country Park. Plans to move the Cardiff Bay Aqua Park to the eastern lake at the country park were unveiled in May with an opening date set for July 5. The trial of the inflatable water course will last eight weeks over the summer months. Protesters joined together, with placards in hand, at the main entrance of the country park today - Monday, June 9 - to peacefully protest against the plans. Never miss a Cardiff story by signing up to our daily newsletter here Cosmeston Country Park covers 100 acres of land in Penarth, with an abundance of wildlife habitats. Part of the park is a Site of Special Scientific Interest ensuring the protection of the rare and diverse plant and animal species that live there. Angela Peterken is a forest school leader, educating children in the natural environment at the park, including near the eastern lake. She held a sign at the protest that said: "Forest School says keep Cosmeston for wildlife!" Article continues below Angela is passionate about protecting the nature and tranquillity of the lake and fears that the waterpark will have a negative impact on it. She said: "We want people to enjoy the park and part of that is the peace and quiet here. I'm not against the AquaPark being put in another location, but I am completely against it being here. "This is a fantastic habitat for special animals, we need to protect that. We know that it is only temporary for now but you can't tell the wildlife to come back in eight weeks, it doesn't work like that." A nine-year-old member of the forest school at the country park says she probably wouldn't use it and that the plans are 'ridiculous'. She said: "It's a wildlife park and the idea of putting a water park here is ridiculous. It's the wildlife home. "We walk along the lake as part of forest school and it's usually quiet but the water park would make it busy." "Leave Cosmeston to the wildlife" (Image: Taite Johnson ) A petition against the Aqua Park has gained over 5,000 signatures with residents and members of the local community worried about the water quality of the lake, the impact it would have on wildlife and the environmental impact. In response the Vale of Glamorgan Council wrote: "We have worked with a number of partner agencies to ensure that the lake is safe for Aqua Park visitors to enjoy, including a detailed programme of water testing work. "The testing has shown no issues with the quality of the water and it will continue to be monitored throughout the trial period." One member of the community said: "The site is an SSSI, the whole point of having a protected area is that things like this don't happen. The light, sounds and vibration pollution will affect all the animals, birds mammals, fish and insects. "It would be so sad to see the Aqua Park here. It has upset my children, they have been visibly upset asking 'Mummy, why are they doing it?'" Philippa, Saar and Heather organised the protest at the lake (Image: Taite Johnson ) Philippa Newman organised the protest alongside Saar Lenaerts-Williams after feeling angry at the council for not listening tot he people in the community. Whilst the council confirmed that an ecological assessment was undertaken and that the water park "will have no significant negative impact on local birdlife or water vole populations", many people including Phillipa were not happy with the report. She said: "I understand things are underfunded, I know that we need things in the area but just not here. We are at a pivotal time for climate change, we have so little of these habitats, we shouldn't be destroying what we do have. "What are the council's plans for the wildlife when we take their home?" Cllr Bronwen Brooks, deputy leader and cabinet member for sustainable places, said: "The Aqua Park will be another great addition to the already fantastic offer at Cosmeston Country Park as the council continues to promote sustainable tourism and leisure activities in the area. "Consultation with residents through the Council's placemaking work has shown there is appetite locally - particularly among young people - for more varied leisure activities, and the re-introduction of water-based activities at Cosmeston will help us to ensure that our Country Parks are for everyone. "Trying new things is at the heart of what we do as an ambitious Council, and this pilot could also enable further income opportunities for our Country Parks – especially in supporting the re-wilding and conservation work already underway at Cosmeston. The Vale of Glamorgan Council has worked with a number of partner agencies to ensure that the lake is safe for Aqua Park visitors to enjoy – including a detailed programme of water testing work." Connor James, founder of Aqua Park Cardiff, said: "We're thrilled to bring Aqua Park Cardiff to Cosmeston Lakes by partnering with The Vale of Glamorgan Council. The Country Park is a fantastic venue for our exciting watersport experience, perfect for supervised adventure and family fun. With an exciting new course of obstacles, we can't wait to welcome visitors to our incredible new home.' "We are also really excited to be playing our part in giving people and families much-needed access to active outdoor experience, in a controlled and supervised environment to help boost their physical and mental well-being." Article continues below
Rhyl Journal
5 days ago
- Climate
- Rhyl Journal
Sewage or other incidents affecting water at beaches in North Wales
Marine conservation charity Surfers Against Sewage issued a pollution alert for several locations across North Wales that had experienced sewage discharged in the past 48 hours. The Safer Seas and Rivers Service, provided by the charity, offers water quality information at surf and swim spots across 600 UK locations. This is where people have been advised not to swim: Pollution Alert: Storm sewage has been discharged from a sewer overflow in this location within the past 48 hours. Situated on the North Wales coastline, below the Great Orme, the bay faces west over Conwy Sands. The beach is long and sandy with a stony pebble foreshore, backed by a concrete promenade. It is potentially impacted by a number of storm and emergency overflows, both along the immediate foreshore and within the main freshwater from the Conwy. This location is covered by Pollution Risk Forecasting. Pollution Alert: Storm sewage has been discharged from a sewer overflow in this location within the past 48 hours. A long sandy beach that stretches over 8km from Kinmel Bay to Llanddulas. The water has a large tidal range and is gently sloping from the low tide mark to the high tide pebble area. Bathing not advised due to Poor annual classification. Rhyl is located approximately one kilometre north east of the River Clwyd, within a long sandy stretch of beach, which extends over 2.5 kilometres from the Clwyd Estuary to Splash Point. Risk of reduced water quality due to heavy rain. The bay is located approximately two-kilometres west of the River Clwyd, within a long sandy stretch of beach, which extends over 8 kilometres, from Kinmel Bay to Llanddulas. The beach has a large tidal range and is gently sloping from the low tide mark to the high tide pebbled area. The water quality sample point lies to the east of the Golden Sands Holiday Camp. Pollution Alert: Storm sewage has been discharged from a sewer overflow in this location within the past 48 hours. Located on the east coast of Anglesey, to the west side of Red Wharf Bay, the St David´s beach is sandy in nature. The beach is located in the Anglesey Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Trwyn Dwlban Site of Special Scientific Interest. It is also 250 metres shoreward of the Menai Straits and Conwy Bay Special Area of Conservation.
North Wales Chronicle
5 days ago
- Climate
- North Wales Chronicle
Sewage or other incidents affecting water at beaches in North Wales
Marine conservation charity Surfers Against Sewage issued a pollution alert for several locations across North Wales that had experienced sewage discharged in the past 48 hours. The Safer Seas and Rivers Service, provided by the charity, offers water quality information at surf and swim spots across 600 UK locations. This is where people have been advised not to swim: Pollution Alert: Storm sewage has been discharged from a sewer overflow in this location within the past 48 hours. Situated on the North Wales coastline, below the Great Orme, the bay faces west over Conwy Sands. The beach is long and sandy with a stony pebble foreshore, backed by a concrete promenade. It is potentially impacted by a number of storm and emergency overflows, both along the immediate foreshore and within the main freshwater from the Conwy. This location is covered by Pollution Risk Forecasting. Pollution Alert: Storm sewage has been discharged from a sewer overflow in this location within the past 48 hours. A long sandy beach that stretches over 8km from Kinmel Bay to Llanddulas. The water has a large tidal range and is gently sloping from the low tide mark to the high tide pebble area. Bathing not advised due to Poor annual classification. Rhyl is located approximately one kilometre north east of the River Clwyd, within a long sandy stretch of beach, which extends over 2.5 kilometres from the Clwyd Estuary to Splash Point. Risk of reduced water quality due to heavy rain. The bay is located approximately two-kilometres west of the River Clwyd, within a long sandy stretch of beach, which extends over 8 kilometres, from Kinmel Bay to Llanddulas. The beach has a large tidal range and is gently sloping from the low tide mark to the high tide pebbled area. The water quality sample point lies to the east of the Golden Sands Holiday Camp. Pollution Alert: Storm sewage has been discharged from a sewer overflow in this location within the past 48 hours. Located on the east coast of Anglesey, to the west side of Red Wharf Bay, the St David´s beach is sandy in nature. The beach is located in the Anglesey Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Trwyn Dwlban Site of Special Scientific Interest. It is also 250 metres shoreward of the Menai Straits and Conwy Bay Special Area of Conservation.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
I live in a UK beauty spot threatened by Labour's planning bill. It could become a disaster zone
The UK needs houses. The UK needs open spaces, and wilderness. The Labour government's Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which cleared its second reading in the House of Commons with a majority of 256 votes, is only interested in the former. At the end of 2024, Keir Starmer declared that homes must have a higher priority than nature and the environment, as ministers outlined reforms that could allow more building on England's green belt. Housing minister Angela Rayner backed him, asserting that 'we can't have a situation where a newt is more protected than people who desperately need housing'. The populist punditry that would once have been anathema to leaders and politicians in general is designed to detract from the dire consequences if the bill is passed. Lawyers, environmental charities – including the RSPB and Wildlife Trusts – and activists have assessed that more than 5,000 of England's most vulnerable protected natural habitats are at risk of being destroyed by development thanks to Labour's new planning bill, which has been dubbed a 'licence to kill'. These would include many of the UK's favourite holiday destinations, such as areas that fall under designations like Sites of Special Scientific Interest, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation, and much-loved nature-rich parts of National Parks and National Landscapes (formerly AONBs), like the New Forest and the Forest of Bowland. As I live in the Forest of Bowland, I have a stake in this debate. I live in a ribbon of farmland that lies between the Forest of Bowland proper and Pendle Hill, which is part of the same protected National Landscape. South of here is East Lancashire, one of the most densely populated parts of the UK. For residents of Burnley, Blackburn and Accrington, Bowland is the second nearest large green space, after the West Pennine Moors. But Bowland is different. As the 'Forest' in its name suggests it is a former hunting chase, and while there are some pockets of grouse moor management that still rile most ordinary residents and visitors, swathes of the park are open country, ideal for hiking, cycling and family picnics. For decades, access was complicated here, with grouse butts and private lands blocking walkers. Just two decades ago, much of Bowland was opened up to walkers for the first time when the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 gave general right of access to the public for the purposes of open-air recreation on foot. People can walk, run and – where permitted – ride bikes wherever there are paths. To be candid, Bowland doesn't have Instagram-friendly summits to bag or famous poets' houses to swoon over. It doesn't attract countless car-tourers or caravan-users. It is absolutely nothing like the Lake District or nearby Yorkshire Dales. Many of its upland areas are boggy and only the very well-acquainted would want to negotiate the steep-sided valleys or gully-riven, heather-clad slopes. But the relatively low visitor numbers are great for nature. A sizeable central section of the 300-square-mile National Landscape is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest because of the habitats it helps to protect and its internationally important bird populations. One of these is the merlin, the UK's smallest bird of prey (it's only about the size of a thrush). On my last visit I saw one at a distance, seated – ironically – on a grouse butt. During the same half-day visit I also spotted meadow pipits, curlews, skylarks, a stonechat, a greylag goose, and nesting peregrines. The most surprising sighting was a couple of ring ouzels – a red-listed species (that is, 'of high conservation concern') and members of the thrush family that dwells on the uplands. The absolute high point was the bird for which Bowland had become famous: the hen harrier. At first I saw males and females skimming across the top of the heather. This was satisfying enough; hen harriers are among the most persecuted birds in the country. Then I was treated to a sky dance, which is when a male hen harrier performs extraordinary aerial stunts to show off to females, to warn off rival males, or – perhaps – just for fun. The one I saw did Red Arrows-style vertical leaps, back flips, twists and turns, against a clear blue sky. It was one of those moments in nature, all of five minutes, that felt life-enhancing and deeply moving. Does any of this matter as much as the desperate housing situation? Is wildlife really as important as new estates? Is it not time rural England accepted that cities can't accommodate all the new houses and flats? Would Bowland not in fact benefit from development? Am I trying to promote tourism and leisure – arguably luxuries for only some members of society – and ignoring the needs of millions of people? The honest answers to all these questions is clear to anyone who lives in places like the Forest of Bowland. The UK is one of the most nature-depleted nations on earth. How often do we hear now the distressing news that butterflies are disappearing, that once familiar birds have become near-extinct, that hedgehogs are on the same path already taken by red squirrels? Even my greenish patch within the greater Bowland area is, frankly, a classic farm-ageddon of dry-stone wall-to-wall sheep fields, with very limited birdlife and a worrying lack of insect life. The flora that lies outside the sheep-mowed areas is not particularly diverse. The trees are, as often as not, plantations of conifers. This is precisely why we need to protect, at all costs, those areas where species thrive or, at least, have a chance to revive. Bowland is the last place to reimagine how England should reside in the coming decades. As well as being an important, if imperfect, space for nature – as outlined above – it has risible road connections, no railways passing through it, and only a couple of bus services that run infrequently and never after dark. The whole area is poorly supplied with the essential, basic amenities communities need to thrive, from schools and hospitals to theatres and cinemas to local shops and places to eat and drink. Dropping blocks of beige housing – this area seems to specialise in hideous and overpriced executive homes – would at best attract some retirees. Alternatively, if truly affordable housing were built in any useful quantities, the Government would have to seriously consider a new town project of some kind. The nearest urban areas – Preston, Blackburn, Lancaster – currently have deep-set housing, social and transport problems of their own. They all take forever to reach on the winding country lanes that link, eventually, to the jammed and dangerous A59 – the one major trunk road that tears through the Ribble Valley in a blaze of boy-racers, trundling tractors and pelotons of unhappy cyclists. Try this experiment in any of the 5,000-plus precious areas and the results will be the same. The tourism and leisure, exercise and inspiration that ordinary people get from being close to birdsong and surrounded by unsullied, unpeopled emptiness will be sacrificed to cover up the deep tragedy of 40 years (and counting) or poor planning by all shades of government, national and local. Much of British wildlife is threatened. Nightingales, badgers, dormice, otters, butterflies, dragonflies, kingfishers, tufted ducks and egrets are just some of the beautiful creatures that the extant, already damaged natural areas help to conserve. If we wipe these out, and destroy the places they inhabit, what is there for people to do, to see, to admire? The wealthy will go overseas, adding air miles. The rest of us will have nowhere to stretch our legs or lungs. Bowland is no paradise, no idyll. But Labour's short-sighted and unscientific scheme to fill the hills and vales with houses, in the face of criticism from experts from many camps, will turn it into a disaster zone. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
The National
27-05-2025
- Business
- The National
Here are all the reasons why approving Flamingo Land's plan is wrong
Scotland's tourism industry takes too much value out of its assets in relation to how much it puts in. Lots of infrastructure is ageing and lots of places lack development. So our anger at the Flamingo Land decision has nothing to do with whether there should be a tourism development on the banks of Loch Lomond, it's that the development should benefit Scotland and its people. This development doesn't and never did. Letting it go ahead is the wrong decision environmentally. Good infrastructure in the 21st century should enhance the environment, not damage it. READ MORE: Flamingo Land's plans for Loch Lomond 'as destructive as Trump's for Aberdeenshire' Every assessment made concluded it should be rejected. So adapt the plans, scale them for the location and make them work – don't just ram them through anyway. Have we learned nothing from the damage done to a Site of Special Scientific Interest by Trump's Aberdeen golf course? It is the wrong decision for the community. The local opposition to this development was overwhelming, for all sorts of reasons. It is dubious whether lots of low-pay service sector jobs are what this community needs. It certainly has no stake in or ownership of the development. No-one who will take the profits out of this venture lives within 300 miles of the affected community. But it is also the wrong decision for the community because it is the wrong decision for infrastructure. I take the road past Loch Lomond every time I head to Scotland's north-west. It is always slow and busy. The projected traffic flow increases will make significantly worse a situation that public policy should be improving. The reason good development works well in nations who do it so much better than Scotland is that they are taken as holistic exercises, used to improve the wider area and to create better outcomes for people. They are scaled to location, not grossly enlarged as financiers demand. If developments induce substantial new traffic road updates or public transport alternatives are integrated. Work is done on amenities and water supply and parking and sewage. Development plans are created to leverage benefit from new development. These nations seek to boost other economic or tourism offers in the surrounding areas so maximum benefit comes to as many people as possible. They design ways for the overflow of economic activity to flow into surrounding areas. They do not dump everyone else – everyone else – with the price of a millionaire's profits. This development means you will pay every time you try to drive to Scotland's north-west, because your journey will be slower and worse and long traffic snarl-ups much more likely. You will pay to mitigate environmental harms. The community will pay in its quality of life. Local young people will pay as they are streamed into low-pay service-sector employment, or they will compete for affordable homes with a foreign workforce. Only the owner will gain. That is a bad development. READ MORE: 'Thanks for the support folks': Pro-indy radio station shuts down after six years And the decision is very, very clearly wrong democratically. Everything above is what was found at every stage of the planning process which is why, again and again, it met overwhelming opposition and was unanimously rejected. That this all carries less weight than some 'reporter' who, after chats with the wealthy, can overrule the entire process is a scandal in itself. For the Scottish Government then to pretend that this wasn't its decision is simply false. This is a Scottish Government decision and its elaborate attempts to create plausible deniability are a poor show. The scale of Scotland's centralisation is petrifying. Local communities are always, always weak. The Scottish Government gives them next to no power and then, when they exercise what little power they have, too often central government contemptuously reveals it was all a charade in the first place. The First Minister holds summits to try to work out why people have lost faith in democracy and politics in Scotland. This kind of shit is why it has happened. The phrase 'it never matters what we think' should really be Scotland's national motto. In Scotland, democracy appears to be a con that keeps the public busy while the rich do what they want anyway. So this decision is utterly terrible for trust in the honesty and probity of politics. Do you know anyone in the building industry? Ask them what planning conditions are. They will tell you that they're just there to soothe the locals. They will disappear once approval is given and the fines for breaking them are negligible anyway. Tree protection order? Don't make me laugh – the fine is worth less than the land under the branches of the tree. The decision is wrong economically. The holding company that will operate the resort is registered in Scotland but is wholly owned by a family based in Yorkshire. I can see no mechanism in the ownership structure of this enterprise that will bring any profits into the Scottish economy. The sorry, sorry reality is that economic policy in Scotland starts and ends at the desire to sell the country and its assets to any foreign millionaire it can, as fast as it can. It is time we understood that 'foreign direct investment' is Scotland's biggest failure, a betrayal of the nation. Remember when Scotland's North Sea oil was taken from us? That was foreign direct investment. So is ScotWind. Our land, our businesses, our infrastructure, our airports and ports, our tourism, our high street properties, our trees – enormous proportions of all of this are owned by corporations from foreign countries who extract the wealth. Last year, Common Weal produced a report which showed that in the preceding year, £36.5 billion flew out of Scotland while only £26.4bn came in. That is a net loss of 5.6% of GDP, which is greater than the average of any World Bank income group, including the income group made up of the world's least developed and most heavily indebted nations. We lose our wealth faster than the average third-world country. Scotland has lost £277 bn of national wealth since devolution. The question isn't whether we were culturally colonised 300 years ago, it's whether we're being economically colonised now. Which means this decision is really bad for independence, because week after week, Scotland's pathetic, needy economic strategy strips it of ownership of the national assets that make us a viable future nation-state. There is a local development trust with 1000 members and strong local business links. It has plans. If I was a Government minister I'd be up there tomorrow, supporting them to develop an exciting proposal based on local benefit. And I'd commit to fund a viable final business plan via the Scottish National Investment Bank, keeping the whole development in community ownership, with the economic benefit staying in Scotland and the wealth created shared across the community. There is really only one upside to this whole, sorry affair; the massive property developers, financiers, consultancies and legal firms who in reality appear to operate government in Scotland all have generous fees coming. On every other possible level, this is a farce and a scandal.
