NIRAH Planning Application Meeting Speech
Introduction
As you are aware I am here today to object to the planning application submitted by NIRAH and to outline the reasons why I think it should be refused planning permission, which I will summarise under various headings. I would like to point out that I am not opposed any redevelopment of the Quest Pit site, however I firmly believe that any proposal should be sustainable and of benefit to the surrounding communities and should not have any adverse effects on either people, animals or the environment.
Environmental Impact
One of my major sources of concern regarding the NIRAH project, which is echoed by many organisations objecting to this planning application, is the impact the increased traffic will have on the local road network. NIRAH is expecting 3.5 million visitors in the first year alone and needless to say the vast majority of these will arrive by car. The modelling techniques used and assumptions made by NIRAH in their application can be confusing to the layperson, however I don’t believe that it is necessary to fully understand these in order to assess the overall impact. Commonsense will tell everyone here that the increased amount of traffic is just not sustainable. Anyone who travels in the county on a regular basis can see that Bedford and the surrounding area already suffers from terrible road congestion. Peak hour traffic into and out of Bedford can be unbearable and as just one example people entering Bedford along the Marston bypass during the evening rush hour will know that the traffic queues from Bedford back as far as Marston itself. Junction 13 of the M1 is another notorious hot spot with traffic often queuing to get on and off the motorway throughout the day, not just during peak times. Unfortunately it is a sad fact of life that public transport is currently just not efficient or cheap enough to entice the average person to use it instead of their car and this will continue to be the case once NIRAH is open.
The increased amounts of traffic will have a knock-on effect on everyone living and travelling in and around the area with nearby villages particularly affected by cars taking short cuts or even parking on the streets instead of using the official Park and Shuttle site. Increased amounts of traffic will also have an adverse effect on road safety in the area which is of particular concern to families with children living in the nearby villages. Even more importantly the increased traffic generated by visitors to NIRAH could have a disastrous effect on the environment in an area that already suffers from heightened air pollution from traffic. Some parts of Bedford have now been designated as air quality management areas due to high levels of nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere.
As for the practicalities of utilising a ‘park and shuttle’ service running with several buses per hour through the new Wixams village I do not feel I need to go into details as it is obviously going to cause tremendous problems on the roads and is indeed the main cause of concern for most of the organisations objecting to the scheme. With the current fears over climate change we should not be encouraging people to travel by car from all corners of the country for the sake of a day out; we should instead be encouraging them to spend time visiting local leisure facilities and enjoying the countryside on their own doorstep. The proposed NIRAH site would be better off being developed as a leisure area which would appeal to and be accessible to people who already live in the area with improved bus, pedestrian and cycle routes to allow environmentally friendly access.
The sheer scale of the proposed NIRAH project will mean that it will generate a huge demand for resources, be these power, heating or water, and this needs to be carefully considered. NIRAH’s environmental statement lists a number of options for renewable energy, however on closer inspection it would appear that most of these options will not be taken up in the final design. Apparently wind turbines are a definite ‘no-no’ due to their potential impact on the environment. Presumably this is because they are tall, however when being used as part of a scheme that itself will stand 60m high this hardly seems a reasonable concern given the benefits it could bring in terms of producing clean, green energy. Solar water heating and photovoltaic panels are also discussed, however the opinion appears to lay towards not utilising these options due to cost. The preferred solution for power and heat generation is an on-site combined heat and power plant. Ideally this would burn wood pellets from a sustainable source, however even this is not a definite option with gas being touted as an alternative fuel.
More recently the local press has reported on the potential siting of an incinerator at the nearby Rookery Pit which could be used to provide heat to the NIRAH project. Despite recent attempts from some quarters to re-brand new generation incinerators as a green option by re-labelling them ‘energy from waste’ plants, burning rubbish to avoid it going to landfill is not the answer to either the problem of what to do with waste or how to cope with additional energy demands in the future. However closely monitored incinerators will still emit some amount of unsavoury fumes into the air and of course they all still use energy in order to operate. And how much waste that is burnt in these incinerators could actually be recycled if the county improved its recycling facilities? And of course the increased traffic flow caused by lorries travelling to the nearby incinerator would just add further to the already over-congested roads.
Economic Effect
NIRAH has been counting on claims of an increase in jobs and a positive effect on the local economy to balance any objections to its proposed scheme. There is no guarantee however that the jobs created, both during the construction phase and once the project is open, will be given to local people. Furthermore, although job creation is always desirable, this needs to be balanced against the negative impact of the industry from which these jobs arise. Bedfordshire like most places would benefit from additional jobs, however it is not in such desperate need of these jobs as has sometimes been made out. The most recent unemployment figures for the county show that the unemployment rate is currently 1.6 % and has been steadily decreasing for a number of years. This rate compares favourably with the average rate for the South East region which is 1.8 % and even better against the national average of 2.3 %. From this it can be concluded that jobs are being steadily created throughout the county and there is no reason why this should not continue without the NIRAH project. NIRAH claims that the jobs would be spread across a variety of skills areas, however given that much of the project will be geared towards leisure and retail it is likely that the majority of jobs will be in the service sector, for example shop assistants, hotel and restaurant staff, and the range of jobs available will not be as diverse as some people may have been led to believe. The more highly skilled positions will relate mainly to the research side of the project and due to their specialist nature will not necessarily be filled by people living in the area.
As for the much-quoted knock-on effect on the local economy I just can’t see this happening. Visitors will travel to NIRAH for a day out and will spend the entire day on site. Given the range of facilities to be provided by NIRAH, including entertainment, leisure, shops and cafes, there is no reason whatsoever for people to venture outside of the main site to make use of local facilities. To compound this Bedfordshire is not a traditional tourist area and, despite its many attractions, does not have as much to offer visitors as other parts of the UK. This does not mean it is a ‘bad’ place and in fact I would argue that Bedfordshire is quite a pleasant area in which to live and work, but it is not somewhere people would generally choose to visit for its own sake.
This does not matter as far as I am concerned and I do not understand this pressing need to turn the area into a tourist destination, with all the resultant problems this will bring. There are plenty of other parts of the country that are enjoyable to visit; we do not need to turn the whole country into a holiday spot. Even if this were not the case it is extremely unlikely that visitors to NIRAH would ever venture outside of the complex or stay for more than one day. That is not how people would see a trip to the NIRAH project. How many people have been on a day trip to another attraction, for example Alton Towers which has the advantage of being close to the scenic Peak District, and actually decided to venture outside of the attraction to visit the local area? How many people would actually have the time once they had exhausted all that is on offer within the site?
In this case local businesses, whether they are shops, cafes, restaurants, hotels or leisure facilities, would not see an increase in their profit as a result of the NIRAH project and new businesses would not be generated as there would be no demand for them. More worryingly, if NIRAH decides to open up some of its facilities to visitors, for example the water adventure park or plant and aquatic centre, independent of the main attraction and without, or with a reduced, entry fee, this would actually create direct competition with similar businesses in the area. For these reasons I do not believe that the NIRAH project would have the effect on the local economy that it has claimed.
Conservation
According to NIRAH conservation is at the heart of the NIRAH project. They claim that research carried out on the animals they plan to keep in captivity will help to conserve them in the wild in the future. As this is a major claim which has led to much support for the project from members of the public then it deserves comment. I would disagree that conservation is at the heart of the NIRAH project. NIRAH will be taking as many as a third of the many thousand species of fish, reptiles and amphibians from the wild. Presumably they will be air freighted to the UK from far flung places which will only add to the already substantial carbon footprint of the project. Many animals do not currently survive such long and arduous journeys and will die before or shortly after arrival at the aquarium. Will this lead to even more animals being transported from their natural habitat to replace those that die?
Captive breeding programmes are nowhere near as successful as often claimed. Of the almost 6,000 species classified as threatened or endangered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, only around 120 species are involved in international zoo breeding programs, and from these just 16 species have been reintroduced to the wild with varying degrees of success. Mortality rates for those released back into the wild are high and there is the added danger that released animals may be carrying a virus picked up whilst in captivity which could devastate not only these animals but also the already endangered wild population. If nothing is done to address the underlying causes of declining wild animal populations, mostly man-made such as destruction of natural habitat, hunting, etc, then the programme is doomed to certain failure. NIRAH have made great claims about their conservation agenda, yet in my opinion they have totally failed to demonstrate how they will put this into practice in any meaningful way. If there was any real concern for preserving wildlife then surely Quest Pit would be the ideal site to protect many of our native species which have already begun to colonise the area, including some protected species such as the Great Crested Newt.
Research
Like conservation the science research park has been hailed as one of the main components of the NIRAH project, and one which makes it a unique proposition. Yet again there has been little information forthcoming on what this research will involve and how it will be of benefit. The public as well as the local authorities and other organisations affected should have the right to know exactly what this side of the project will involve, not only the type of research carried out by NIRAH itself but also that which they intend to allow pharmaceutical companies and universities to carry out.
Often the full extent of animal experimentation is deliberately kept quiet at the planning stage to prevent opposition from the public. This proved to be the case recently when a proposed ‘animal hotel’ at Oxford University turned out to be a massive new vivisection laboratory where academics plan to carry out research on primates amongst other animals. There is a very real fear here that the NIRAH project could turn out to be a similar case. I am well aware that the ethics surrounding vivisection is not considered a relevant planning issue, however I believe transparency is essential in order to allow members of the public and other interested parties to make an informed decision on whether or not to support or object to a planning proposal.
Public Consultation
Apart from the normal legal requirements which allow for people to comment on a planning application once submitted there has been no additional public consultation on the NIRAH project, which I find astounding for a development of this size and nature. Even more concerning is the fact that Bedfordshire County Council saw fit to loan NIRAH over £1 million of tax payers’ money again with no public consultation. NIRAH has carried out some consultation prior to submission of its planning application, however even this was not thorough. Last summer NIRAH cancelled the 3 day Bedford exhibition at short notice claiming that the venue was unsuitable and no other venues were available. I found this hard to believe and in fact Ronnie Murning, one of NIRAH’s directors has since admitted publicly that the exhibition was cancelled due to a proposed protest against the NIRAH project on the same day. I find it inexcusable that those living and working in Bedford were denied this opportunity to view NIRAH’s plans and comment on them just because a peaceful and lawful demonstration was to take place outside.
Security Issues
I note the comments of Bedford Police force that they have not been consulted by NIRAH regarding security and crime prevention issues and that they find this surprising, as do I. Have the police considered however the wider implications of having an aquarium and animal experimentation laboratory of this magnitude on their doorstep? The NIRAH project has already attracted much opposition and protest over the last couple of years with 3 major demonstrations and marches through Bedford town centre and numerous smaller protests in Bedford and London. If built the NIRAH project will undoubtedly attract much more opposition and will become the focus of protests from those opposed to keeping animals in captivity and opposed to vivisection.
Whilst all the demonstrations have so far been peaceful, and I have no reason to doubt that this will continue to be the case, there is still an onus on the police force to provide a certain amount of coverage of demonstrations in the interest of public and road safety. This will have an effect on the resources of the local police force, and by default local tax payers, and I believe this is as issue that should have been addressed by NIRAH in consultation with the local police force. As already stated NIRAH cancelled its Bedford exhibition because of a protest and there was a report in last week’s Bedfordshire on Sunday that the venue for this meeting was changed due to concerns over a proposed demonstration at County Hall. This is obviously an issue that concerns both NIRAH and the County Council so why has it not been addressed as part of the planning process?
Conclusion
In summary I feel that NIRAH’s proposals for a huge aquarium and science research park will bring nothing but disaster for Bedfordshire. I believe the development will have a significant adverse impact on local communities and the environment and will not deliver the benefits that NIRAH is claiming it will. If the NIRAH project goes ahead it will definitely put Bedfordshire on the map, but for all the wrong reasons, and this is why this planning application should be refused.
Justina Mclennan
19th October 2007