Ecological issues with the Wanstead Flats 2012 enclosure proposals
Almost all of us have concerns about the proposals to enclose and use part of Wanstead Flats as a 'Muster, Briefing and Deployment Centre' for the Olympics in 2012. These range from concerns about a variety of pollutions, traffic build-up, local security through to perhaps the biggest of all - a long-term threat to Epping Forest as an unenclosed open space.
In local and national newspapers and at public meetings, these concerns have been expressed and discussed. Amongst these are threats to the environment - including the plants, birds and other animals which might live and use the area, or be disturbed because of the use of the site.
To allay some of these concerns - and presumably because any LRO (Legislative Reform Order) required might not be issued if it could be proved that "significant" harm might result, a habitat survey was commissioned on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Authority. This was undertaken by WSP Environmental Ltd., and is available here as a pdf. file.
From a wildlife point of view, I note that in the Executive Summary of that report, in the third paragraph, it states that "the habitat within the Application Site is not of significant wildlife value and does not provide suitable habitat for protected species." It goes on to say that "measures will be taken to ensure that potential adverse impacts to wildlife are avoided."
Now this is all very well - one would expect that measures would be taken to ensure no harm be done - but it worries me that in effect there is a dismissal of the value of the site as a wildlife habitat, comparison being so readily made to the nearby SSSI. As far as I can ascertain, the SSSI status has been granted because it is an area of acid grassland (rare in the London area) and that the sandy areas are "some of the most important habitats in Epping Forest for rare insects". The City of London's summary of Wanstead Flats mentions threatened birds such as the Skylark and several plants that are rare or uncommon, such as Heather, Mat Grass and Harebell. I shall return to these later.
Reading through the MPA's survey, there are some aspects that disturb me. The most obvious is that the on-site survey by WSP Environmental Ltd. was undertaken on ONE DAY only, and this in NOVEMBER 2009. The survey does begin with the admission that this was in effect a desk study - that is, it collected and referred to data held by "statutory and non-statutory consultees". Those mentioned are the Greenspace Information for Greater London (GIGL) and the National Biodiversity Network Gateway. It is right and proper that these valuable resources were consulted, but I must ask whether the City of London's own database was consulted, and indeed how extensive, comprehensive and up-to-date any of these databases are?
It worries me that within the results of the survey it mentions breeding Skylarks and Rooks and Yellowhammers. With regard the Skylarks, it states that the nearest record relates to 350m N. of the proposed site. There are Skylarks breeding substantially closer than that, but presumably that information is not shown on the databases referred to. As for the Rooks - I have a record of just one: "on 3rd November 1976, calling as it flew over Wanstead Park." Rooks are not present on Wanstead Flats; there are Carrion Crows, but even an inexperienced bird-watcher should be easily able to distinguish between those species! Yellowhammers have been seen on Wanstead Flats; my records state "Small numbers of up to 3 birds have been seen over the years in the Sewage Works, Wanstead Park or Wanstead Flats.", and I haven't seen one for years. As for the rare or uncommon plants that were mentioned earlier, Heather (Calluna vulgaris) is indeed present on the SSSI to the north of the site in question, and steps have been taken over recent years to increase it. However, this does not explain why some years ago in the laying-down of a drainage ditch near Alexandra Lake, the only patch of heather in that area was destroyed, and this by the Conservators of Epping Forest. Did they not have the information that it was there? Mat Grass (Nardus stricta) on the other hand is quite widely spread over a large area of Wanstead Flats, and the SSSI is not the only area in which it is found; should it not be protected elsewhere, too? As for Harebell (Campanula rotundifolia), very little if any remains on Wanstead Flats - SSSI or not - and the best patch (again near Alexandra Lake) has been allowed to bramble-over. I could mention some other rare plants to the area which are not mentioned specifically in the report, such as Creeping Willow (Salix repens), Longleaf (Falcaria vulgaris) and Petty Whin (Genista anglica). Some of the Creeping Willow is threatened by mowing, more by bramble; Longleaf has been mown virtually out of existence this year, and Petty Whin - one patch of which was actually on the site in question has disappeared with the encroachment of broom. None of these were even mentioned. What is on the site now - does anybody know? I can immediately present Buck's-horn Plantain and Sand Spurrey, which - although neither particularly rare or dramatic - find that environment much to their liking. And what about the mosses and lichens? You see, it can always be argued that something is "not of significant wildlife value", but value to whom or what!!
Now this is worrying; WSP Environmental Ltd. have asked whom they felt relevant to ask for their data, but they didn't ask those people who live here and may have studied the area for years. What records and information have the Conservators of Epping Forest got of the invertebrates that inhabit the proposed site? Do they have records - have they even done a survey - and if so why wasn't it quoted? I suspect that as is so often the case, all of the attention has been given to the "big game" and the SSSI's, and anything or anywhere else just dismissed as "not of significant wildlife value".
The last paragraph of the summary is also cause for concern: "Recommendations for the re-instatement of the ground to a grassland habitat after use have been made. This should include re-seeding with a native grassland seed mix." First of all, the majority of the site could only be referred to as marginally a grassland area. In fact, grass is pretty sparse! But to suggest re-seeding with a "native grassland seed mix" is wrong anyway. What is a native grassland seed mix? What grassland species does it consist of? Are those species representative of those found on Wanstead Flats - or will species be introduced that are not part of the present make-up? When the major water-pipeline project was completed recently, we were told that the disturbed grassland was re-seeded with seeds harvested from nearby and generally similar Leyton Flats. Is this not a more appropriate way of dealing with any necessary re-seeding? In recent months, that same drainage ditch that was responsible for the loss of a patch of heather was partially re-filled. The soil that was used to do this appeared to be almost all sand. The plant species that appeared shortly afterwards included Charlock (Sinapis arvensis) and Green Amaranth (Amaranthus hybridus) - neither of which are native to Wanstead Flats. And this was performed either by or on behalf of the Conservators of Epping Forest - the body which is supposed to be managing, in a knowledgeable way, the Epping Forest environment. It certainly did not ensure that species alien to Wanstead Flats were not accidentally introduced!
Whether or not the Fairground site is used by the Metropolitan Police during the Olympics, from an ecological point of view I have some doubts about the validity of surveys and consultations that are taking place to establish whether it should.
Paul Ferris, 24th September 2010