Monday 13 April 2009

SaveOurFens E-Petition

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop the National Trust flooding or junglefying our Cambridgeshire Fens!

The National Trust still wants to buy up and flood or junglefy some 15,000 acres of fine food-growing Cambridgeshire Fen land, the best of Britain's most basic resources and close by the ancient Fen-edge settlements of Wicken, Upware, Burwell, Reach, Swaffham Prior, Swaffham Bulbeck, Lode & Longmeadow, Bottisham, Stow cum Quy, Fen Ditton, Horningsea and Waterbeach. We deplore the loss of this land, the threat to homes, livelihoods and businesses, and the grave danger to a place of worship (the well-known and greatly-loved 'Little Chapel in The Fen'). We are concerned that additional car parks and extra traffic in and through the villages - as well as more flies and mosquitoes - will affect residents adversely. Most of all, we are angered by the pointless and enormous estimated £100-million-plus expense (to include the £20-million so-called 'Bridge of Reeds' over the A14) and believe, in this recession, that there are other and better objects and causes to support.

Go to -
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveOurFens/

This E-Petition is closed (as of 3rd February, 2010). It attracted 418 signatures!

200 comments:

  1. Over 200 names have been added to the on-line E-Petition: great!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Letter received 14/4/2009:

    Dear Mr Woollard

    Expansion of Wicken Fen

    I am writing to congratulate you on your attempts to publicise the crazy plans of the National Trust to increase the size of Wicken Fen to 15,000 acres. I cannot believe that any institution could be so foolish as to waste so much good agricultural land in this very silly project. This is in addition to the Great Fen project taking yet further farmland from much needed food production.

    The UK is at best only 40% self sufficient in food and with uncontrolled immigration the population is projected to rise to an incredible 70 million within a few years. Defra and the Government think the UK will always be able to buy in the additional food it needs but the present financial crisis and the political instability of the world make this increasingly unlikely.

    Some months ago following an earlier letter of yours in Cambridge News I wrote to Mr Soans of the National Trust making these points and pressing the National Trust to stop any further expansion of Wicken Fen. He acknowledged my letter but essentially said the National Trust knew best.

    I do hope we can all persuade the National Trust to stop this nonsensical plan immediately.

    Yours sincerely

    Dr. ***** ******* MA

    ReplyDelete
  3. Message received 26/4/2009:

    Dear Geoffrey,

    Thanks for circulating the well balanced and sensible letter with which I am sure all your supporters will heartily agree.

    The logic or Dr ***** ******* is very persuasive and compelling and if it is then linked to all the other negatives which are already coming out of the Wicken project, the extra urban style cycle ways, the mosquito threat and the extra traffic, plus the extra glass and plastic litter which is beginning to appear along the lode walkways which are already losing some of their rustic charm, and if more people use them the negative effect on wildlife and the costly need for more wardens etc... , it really is a disaster.

    Hope this support plus the good recent help from ECDC will bring about a rethink before it is too late.

    Keep up the good work.

    M******

    ReplyDelete
  4. Message received 27/4/2009:

    We can only wholeheartedly agree!

    With global warming the mosquitoes will very soon be malaria carrying as was the case in the past.

    Malaria is still the biggest killer in the World.

    Hooray for the Malaria Fen!

    Regards,

    G***** and F**** L*******

    ReplyDelete
  5. Message received 27/4/2009:

    Dear Geoffrey,

    You are definitely 'leaning against an open door' as far as I am concerned!

    I hate these wastrels who dictate how the countryside is run yet have little or no knowledge about such. Also the limp-wristed brigade who are forever meddling with concepts of habitats for birds and furry animals without any understanding of how they adapt.

    There is a club for these cretins - it is made of oak and about 30" long .....

    Cheers for now,

    N****

    ReplyDelete
  6. Message received 27/4/2009:

    Dear Geoffrey,

    Hope I have done it properly. My name is now at the bottom of your list so it should be all right.

    Hope your petition does some good. It is a very good - and necessary one.

    Best wishes,

    J****

    ReplyDelete
  7. From the Cambridge News (29/4/2009):

    Letters.

    "Good farmland

    From Anthony Day

    Welcome, Alec Sadler (News, April 17) to the voices against the "Wicken Vision" concept of the future in our homeland, the Fens.

    We do not have money to burn on propaganda and are deeply grateful for newspaper coverage.

    The thickest veil over their plans is the floating of them into the distant future - a hundred years, no less. Formless dreams are sustained that way, quite outside practically, quite beyond the lifespans of the advocates. All sorts of people can put their hands up to support the plans without being found out!

    Now people love to walk round Wicken Fen and, sadly, they are encouraged to do so without restriction and, remarkably, with no outcry from the naturalists once dedicated to its designed purpose as a wildlife haven. It has been given over to entertainment and the extension plan is proffered for the same purpose.

    But Wicken Fen is not a true fen. It stands much higher than the surrounding landscape and remains largely dry and comfortable. Sometimes, indeed, water is pumped into it. It was once dug for peat, as shown from the air after the fen fire of 1929 and nearly a hundred years on the peat is there again and building.

    But the notion of defying the drainage system that has kept the Fen Country dry for over 50 years to muddle together this artificial wilderness conjured up as the "Wicken Vision", with no mature authority to offer reliable advice, is ridiculous. No whisper of the hazards has been touched upon by the scheme's hazy advocates.

    Other correspondents, with whom I agree, have pleaded for the land to be returned to agriculture and grazing. This country will need it for that purpose more and more during the coming decades. The alternative would prove more repellent than attractive to people and creatures wild.

    Pond Green
    Wicken"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Message received 30/4/2009:

    Dear Geoffrey,

    Keep campaigning - we need you. And so do the Lodes.

    J****

    ReplyDelete
  9. From the Cambridge News (5/5/2009):

    Letters

    "Too Grandiose

    Congratulations to Fred Brown and other members of East Cambridgeshire District Council for the common sense displayed in refusing to endorse the ill-conceived Wicken Vision.

    It is not the remit of the National Trust to embark on grandiose schemes aimed at changing the face and fabric of the countryside. Its policy makers should remind themselves of the National Trust's own mission statement which, I believe, is to: "Conserve all for everyone."

    Graham Smith
    Harlton Road
    Little Eversden."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Message received 6/5/2009:

    Dear Geoffrey,

    It was great to be shown over 'The Little Chapel in the Fen' and to see at first hand your splendid and much deserved restoration. It has been a privilege to be associated with it. Well done on your great achievement of which you should be rightly very proud.

    Just hope that 'The Wicken Fen Project' doesn't raise the water levels too much and provide a future threat to the foundations and floors.

    Keep well,

    M****** & S****

    ReplyDelete
  11. From the Ely Standard (14/5/2009):

    Letters

    "Battle To Stop Fens Going To Rack and Ruin

    Your correspondent, Mr Gibbs, is right in only one respect: it is quite true that I own only a few acres of croppable Fen land. I should point out, however, through the hundreds of people who have signed the on-line 'SaveOurFens' E-Petition to 10 Downing Street -

    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveOurFens/ -

    I know that I am in alliance with the owners and/or farmers of many thousands of acres of food-producing land, land which is needed now and will be needed more as the populations of Great Britain and the world continue to grow. Mr Gibbs might do me the kindness of acknowledging this unless, of course, he thinks it right for us to go on importing as much food as we do today.

    I am also battling on behalf of those local folk who don't want our Fens to go to rack and ruin under the National Trust's rule, when what isn't under water would be a mass of brambles, elder bushes, ragwort, stinging nettles and thistles. I and my friends and supporters won't give up under any form of fire.

    Geoffrey Woollard
    Upware."

    ReplyDelete
  12. From the Newmarket Journal (7/5/2009):

    Letters

    "Councillor talks double talk in double measure

    East Cambridgeshire Council is quite right to be concerned regarding the National Trust's so-called 'Wicken Vision' but one of the councillors supposedly representing the area is a naughty boy.

    Cllr Robert Stevens says things at Ely meetings that are in sharp contrast to much of what he says to me. He is reported to have said that "the vision is a marvellous opportunity ... the vast majority of (the residents) like this vision and welcome it".

    However, Cllr Stevens wrote to me in March saying, among other less than complimentary comments on the National Trust:

    "My worries about cars are already having a big impact on Lode. Saturday, February 21, (in their Snowdrop Season) was dreadful and just as bad as last year.

    The Anglesey Abbey car park was full, so too their paddock opposite the church. Then cars parked all the way down Lode Road and both sides of Quy Road. Also in the High Street and Mill Road. All the police could do was to ticket illegally-parked cars.

    The NT withdrew its car park application for the field opposite the visitors' centre, presumably on account of a damning appraisal by county highways (it didn't like the traffic light pedestrian crossing or the two car park entrances). The NT may now be looking at further extending the existing car park.

    All this is at odds with the statement I see in the February 2009 Wicken Fen Vision 'News From The Fen' that states that, nationally, the NT has set a target that by 2020 only 60% of its visitors should arrive by car, as opposed to the current 90%.

    They could make a start by having a regular excursion coach service from Cambridge.

    However, the most pressing problem is car parkers in the village from near and afar.

    The NT Wicken Fen Vision website says that visitors are welcome to park in the Anglesey or Wicken car parks for walking or cycling therefrom, yet the property manager at Anglesey has confirmed to me that he doesn't want anyone parking in the Abbey car park unless they are visiting the Abbey.

    Anyway, it's only open five days a week whereas the Wicken one is open at all times. No co-ordination here.

    The poor old parish council is now trying to find some parking space near the old station.

    It's already having to try to improve the car park by the cemetery (actually owned by the NT) as it is building a new sports pavilion and the NT also wants more allotments nearby.

    The trouble is the NT is so lamentably slow at responding to the situation on the ground. When the 'spine route' is completed we can only expect more problems. Anyway, enough of my moaning for now.

    Regards, Bob Stevens."

    I have heard double-talk before, but this is double-talk in double measure!

    Geoffrey Woollard
    Chapel Farm
    Upware."

    ReplyDelete
  13. From the Newmarket Journal 14/5/2009:

    Letters

    "Problems with Wicken Fen Vision will be overcome

    Geoffrey Woollard accuses me of being a "double-talking, naughty boy".

    May I say that my opinions about the National Trust's parking problems at Anglesey Abbey and in Lode are separate from those of their Wicken Fen Vision in general.

    I am broadly a supporter of the trust's work, but also sometimes a critic.

    As a district councillor, I should consider what the benefit is to East Cambridgeshire's 78,000 residents as a whole.

    Of course, I have to pay attention to my own ward of Bottisham, which includes Lode. I should also consider the Swaffhams, Reach and Burwell.

    It seems to me that the vast majority of these 78,000, or even 12,000, residents are either in favour of the Wicken Vision, content with it, or really do not mind.

    I do feel that the trust's plans could include some productive habitats for food and fuel, and for employment during the transition period.

    Maybe there could be some sustainable mixed farming. The trust could work with the farming community to their mutual benefit. Some farmers may like to sell their land to the trust but continue as tenants, farming it differently.

    Over 100 residents live in the Fen itself. The Drainage Board and trust have stated that they have to protect any houses or farms from the effects of any new pools or areas of wetted peat.

    Residents do have an understandable fear of a danger to their villages from visitors' cars, despite the trust wishing them to come by foot, bike, horse, boat, train, bus or coach.

    The trust has engaged some consultants to look at this. They held a workshop a few months ago with local councillors and their report is due soon.

    I am confident that these problems will be overcome and I will do my best to work to represent the interests of residents, their children and grandchildren.

    Cllr Dr Robert Stevens
    Bottisham Ward."

    ReplyDelete
  14. From the Cambridge News (15/5/2009):

    "Letters

    Fen plan folly

    From Anthony Day

    So we have been given the doublepage spread of sunny propaganda and placid animals from other climes, seen on sunny days if not the scorching ones that distress them in their search for shade where trees are anathema.

    The "Wicken Vision" indeed, an obscure concept secured only in the time plan that compromises nobody today (Thursday, 14 May). But it is a move towards an unpleasant bogland artificially contrived, defying the central drainage system with not an ounce of experience to make it worthwhile. This village and all others adjacent will be disrupted by access measures and the air will change greatly for the worse.

    And I should add that my late partner needed but one mosquito bite to confine her for days.

    Breeding them would have its hazards.

    As a theme park it would soon outlive its appeal and any accumulation of wildlife would depend on strictly limited access, something that has not been applied in Wicken.

    Please, you residents of the adjacent villages, recognise the folly of this plan for the region and speak out against it. And please, you naturalists, come out of hiding and give us your views.

    Pond Green
    Wicken."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Message received 22/5/2009:

    Brilliant, Geoffrey!

    I am becoming more passionate about this destruction of our land and waste of money as each day goes by. I only wish that more people really understand what is going to happen and the effect it will have on our beautiful landscape.

    Best wishes,

    S*****

    ReplyDelete
  16. I went on Wednesday evening to our well-attended Annual Parish Meeting at Swaffham Prior Village Hall and spoke briefly on the National Trust's so-called 'Wicken Vision.'

    I highlighted our general fears for the future of the village and the Parish and - as did our Chairman, Mr John Covill - called especially into question the need for an enormous bridge over the oft-threatened Reach Lode, supposedly to cater for those wanting to make their to Wicken Fen from Anglesey Abbey - a bizarre idea if ever there was one.

    Mrs Sue Wade raised concerns regarding flooding, tourist traffic and planning issues. I said that the 'Vision' itself should have been subject to the proper planning procedure.

    Mr John Norris, a retired farmer of Fen land, said that the land could and would grow almost anything, that he was angry at land formerly farmed by him and now owned by the Trust going to ruin. He agreed that the 'Vision' scheme was a very worrying one, and his and my remarks were greeted with applause.

    I also touched on the 'SaveOurFens' E-Petition and said, tongue-in-cheek, that I would like it to pick up around half the number of signatures on the most popular one at the 10 Downing Street website, that petitioning the Prime Minister to resign. This was greeted with laughter.

    Though no vote was taken, I believe that the meeting was almost wholly in agreement with us yet again.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Message received 6/6/2009:

    The Fen is a beautiful area of Lode and the recent good weather has also seen a lot of walkers out and about enjoying the countryside. They are able to enjoy the river views, experience agriculture and how the crops change with the season, see the horses and a few cattle and I can’t see how the National Trust’s “vision” would make this a better place. The fields they have recently acquired are unproductive and probably the least attractive in the fen.

    T****

    ReplyDelete
  18. Message received 9/6/2009:

    Hi Geoffrey

    Just thought you should know, several of my friends have signed the petition, acknowledged the email from number 10 and are not showing on the list!

    Maybe that's why it's not showing more signatures. My daughter, J****** D******, is on the list but her husband not and I was with her when she did both. My other daughter, V******* M******, has signed too along with lots of others.

    Any explanations?

    Regards

    C****

    ReplyDelete
  19. Message sent 9/6/2009:

    R****** D****** is there OK but I have no idea about any others. The only thing I can think of is that some may have signed using the same Email address as others. Another person I know complained about not getting on and she tried two or three times (she said) without success.

    Anyway, we're up to 305 now with several names over that where 'double-signing' has occurred, so thanks a million again!

    I don't think that we are being sabotaged because the E-Petition asking the PM to resign has over 67,000 signatures on it and that must be the one to 'fix' if anyone were so minded.

    Keep battling on: we've got 'em rattled!

    As ever,

    Geoffrey Woollard.

    ReplyDelete
  20. From the Ely Standard (11/6/2009):

    'Letters

    Fear factor

    How pleasant it was to see some letters being published in support of Mr Woollard's ongoing attempt to block the National Trust's vision for Wicken Fen.

    As Mr Woollard keeps trying to point out, this vision is no small thing, it is enormous. Some 22 square miles of land, picture that if you can. A block of land stretching for miles in all directions. The management of this estate will have a massive effect on the jobs, environment and living conditions of the residents of the fen and villages. Of course they are worried and concerned and, as far as one can tell from the National Trust's proposals so far, rightly so.

    I Robertson
    Ely

    ReplyDelete
  21. From the Ely Standard (11/6/2009):

    Letters

    Here's food for thought

    Ben Gibbs continues to ridicule me and my friends for opposing the National Trust's so-called 'Wicken Vision,' and he makes two points, one being that we have less 'wild fen' surrounding us than we had four hundred years ago. According to estimates that I have seen, there were about five million people in Great Britain in 1600 and there are supposed to be some 60 millions today. So we need less food-growing farm land now? Come off it, Mr Gibbs: how much more ridiculous are you going to get?

    He also heads his latest letter to you, 'Vision Would Save Land' and suggests that the so-called 'Wicken Vision' will save the Fen area from housing and industrial development. Mr Gibbs really exhibits his ignorance here, for if there is one type of land that is pretty well impossible to 'develop' in the way that he worries about, it is the peat-rich but unstable Fen land. Ever heard of piles, Ben?

    Geoffrey Woollard
    Chapel Farm
    River Bank
    Nr Upware

    ReplyDelete
  22. From the Ely Weekly News (11/6/2009):

    Fen Vision protest ‘gaining support’

    By John Goode
    Email: editorial@elyweeklynews.co.uk

    A campaigner against the National Trust’s plans to flood thousands of acres of land has claimed growing support.

    Former county councillor and farmer Geoffrey Woollard has started a petition on the Prime Minister’s website which has been signed by more than 300 people.

    Among them are 10 of the 17 members of the Swaffham Internal Drainage Board, a body which would be directly affected by the National Trust’s Wicken Fen Vision, which involves allowing thousands of acres, currently used for farming, to be flooded to create an extended wetland habitat.

    The Vision, which celebrated its 10th anniversary earlier this year, would take fen almost to the outskirts of Cambridge.

    Supporters have said it will encourage the return of fenland flora and fauna, which has been virtually wiped out by modern farming practices.

    Mr Woollard, who started an E-Petition to the Prime Minister asking him to “Stop the National Trust flooding or junglefying our Cambridgeshire Fens”, said the board’s chairman Henry Hurrell and vice-chairman Jonathan Graves had signed.

    Mr Woollard said he was delighted with the response to the petition and added that he never expected all members of the internal drainage board to support it, as two are district councillors who support the scheme and one is a National Trust employee.

    Mr Woollard said that people were angered at the £100 million-plus cost of the Wicken Vision – including the £20 million for the “Bridge of Reeds” over the A14.

    He said there were better things to support in a recsssion.

    The E-Petition is to be found at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveOurFens/

    ReplyDelete
  23. Comment left on the Daily Telegraph website:

    "we will eventually need almost all the food-growing land in Europe"

    And yet in my area of the Cambridgeshire Fens, in the name of its so-called 'Wicken Vision,' the National Trust wants to buy up and flood or let go to rack and ruin and covered with elder bushes, ragwort, stinging nettles and thistles, some 15,000 acres of fine food-growing Fen land, the best of Britain's most basic resources and close by the ancient Fen-edge settlements of Wicken, Upware, Burwell, Reach, Swaffham Prior, Swaffham Bulbeck, Lode & Longmeadow, Bottisham, Stow cum Quy, Fen Ditton, Horningsea and Waterbeach.

    We deplore the loss of this land and the threat to homes, livelihoods and businesses. We are concerned that additional car parks and extra traffic in and through the villages - as well as more flies and mosquitoes drawn to additional stagnant water - will affect residents adversely.

    Most of all, we are angered by the pointless and enormous estimated £100-million-plus expense (to include a £20-million so-called 'Bridge of Reeds' over the A14) and believe, in this recession, that there are other and better objects and causes to support.

    Sign our E-Petition at -

    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveOurFens/

    ReplyDelete
  24. Comment left on the Daily Telegraph website:

    Thanks to the Telegraph readers who have signed the SaveOurFens E-Petition at -

    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveOurFens/

    - 314 up to the present!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Comment left on the Daily Telegraph website:

    It all depends upon what one means by 'green.'

    In my area of the Cambridgeshire Fens, the National trust is publicly presenting its so-called 'Wicken Vision' as a 'green lung' for Cambridge, whereas what the Trust really wants is quasi-public control of some 15,000 acres of the finest food-growing land in the nation.

    Control for the Trust means ownership and the ability and intention to raise the water table - and water finds its own level - so that large areas are flooded and larger areas are let go to rack and ruin covered with elder bushes, ragwort, stinging nettles and thistles. This is already happening on land recently acquired by the Trust. If the land were useless it might matter less, but this land will grow almost anything and the effect of the Trust's plans and actions will be to make the country even less self-sufficient in food, thereby increasing the need, if it is still a feasible proposition in a climate-changed future, to import more and more from abroad, much coming in by air from great distances.

    So, we have a 'green' scheme, supported by the usual suspects, leading to a complete contradiction of 'green' principles, and all at enormous expense. The National Trust needs to be stopped, now, and readers can assist by signing the anti-National Trust on-line E-Petition at -

    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveOurFens/

    Hundreds already have, but we need many more to support our 'green' line!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Message received 20/6/2009:

    Hello Geoffrey,

    Good piece, usual rattle of anti conservatism and cynical remarks below! It’s a pity there’s never a balanced view and on the issue at hand. The journalist was pointing out that the left were wrong to say they are the only party that has ever cared about the countryside especially when most of their voters were based in the industrial areas. I believe it’s the city/countryside jealously that drives the loathing of conservatism from years ago. Shown up by some of the comments. They argue of the future but protest about conservatism years ago!

    Remember to also mention mosquitoes and rat infestation and importantly what becomes of any existing infrastructure such as sewage pipes and system in an area that will become inaccessible to heavy plant. A whole no-man’s land that would take a generation to get back into food production. We already import 60% of our food requirements – please check that statistic G!

    D***

    ReplyDelete
  27. Message received 20/6/2009:

    Just read your comments. I entirely agree with your sentiments and applaud the extremely well composed remarks.

    S**

    ReplyDelete
  28. From the Ely Standard (25/6/2009):

    Letters

    Cattle At Wicken Fen Can Be Aggressive Towards People

    Summer is upon us. Once again, The National Trust is grazing vast areas around Wicken Fen, with cattle that are often aggressive towards users of the area, especially those with dogs.

    In spite of claims that the project will improve access, the large animals that are allowed to wander on the paths reduce access, as many people are too intimidated by their presence to go there.

    Some supporters of the Wicken Fen Vision think that The National Trust buying up local land will prevent crop-sprayers working right up to their boundaries. However, the cattle are not even managing to control the weeds, as was their intended purpose. The National Trust has now started spraying to control weeds on grazed areas.

    Nor does the argument that the project will save land from development hold any weight, as none of the land is under threat of development. Most of the land bought by The National Trust is below sea level and completely unsuitable for building on.

    Barry Garwood
    Burwell

    ReplyDelete
  29. Message received 26/6/2009:

    Well done Geoffrey,

    I noticed in the paper the other day that disease carrying mosquitoes were being spayed to try and stop them arriving from the rest of Europe to the U.K. The proposed wetlands would be just what they are looking for.

    Regards Roger R.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Message received 28/6/2009:

    When I lived in Nigeria I first had ordinary malaria followed by cerebral malaria. My Nigerian doctor said "You are a sensible man so I will tell you! You have symptoms we do not like to see in de white man. In four days you will be better or you will be dead. We have no dialysis facilities. You may clear your kidneys by drinking six pints of water per day".

    Thank you for the warning - I shall go shopping tomorrow to buy quinine.

    Infected mosquitos have a slower wing beat which produces a buzz rather than a whine.

    Tell your friends but not, I suggest, visiting NT personnel!

    Best wishes,
    John W.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Message received 28/6/2009:

    GLOBAL WARMING PLUS MORE WATERY JUNGLES EQUAL MORE CASES OF MALARIA - a heavier load on the NHS.

    Population expansion with MORE immigrants, but less land on which to grow food equals more imported food.

    Is NT crazy or am I? Keep on with your efforts ... I feel you are gaining support.

    LD

    ReplyDelete
  32. Message received 29/6/2009:

    The more I read about this, the more I think the NT has lost its way on this one and has moved from the protector of national treasures to a builder of theme parks. Wonder if we could appeal nationally to the membership about what is being done in their name with their funds by this little crew in Cambridgeshire?

    A***

    ReplyDelete
  33. From the Cambridge News (1/7/2009):

    Letters

    Lots of birds

    From Geoffrey Woollard

    I believe your depressing correspondent C Burns of Little Eversden (Letters, June 26) is wrong in reporting a decline in bird life and insects with cereal farmers being at fault.

    I used until quite recently to farm cereals at Bottisham and I can assure your readers that we had lots of swallows, swifts and martins there. And Chalk Farm was never without a cuckoo or two.

    I now live in Swaffham Prior Fen, where cereals and some remarkable crops of vegetables are grown, and the bird life is truly wonderful and varied and insects of all sorts proliferate. Indeed, whilst my lime trees are constantly humming with bees and other welcome creatures, there are rather too many aphids around for my liking and the flies and mosquitoes are their usual summer nuisance.

    I am quite near to Wicken Fen and the National Trust boasts on its website of having 1,894 different species of fly there. It also warns visitors to beware of mosquitoes.

    As to cuckoos, we have heard their call almost every day since April and they now start up at about 3.45am. There is no "silent spring" in the Fens and that is one reason why I and my friends are campaigning to keep the fens actively farmed and not ruined by ignorant do-gooders.

    River Bank
    Ely

    ReplyDelete
  34. From the Ely Standard (2/7/2009):

    Letters

    The Trust Is Letting Good Food-Growing Land Go To Rack and Ruin

    Barry Garwood of Burwell is absolutely right. The National Trust's so-called Wicken Vision is looked upon locally as a complete and utter farce and, whilst I acknowledge that the Trust does a good job nationally with its stately homes, etc., it is all too clear to us here that its people are letting fine food-growing land go to rack and ruin. Their so-called Vision will soon see a mass infestation of brambles, elder bushes, flies, mosquitoes, ragwort, stinging nettles and thistles, for those are what flourish and follow from not farming our Fens. Those folk who know about land in my area don't believe that the Trust is capable of running this project.

    Government and National Lottery funding for this nonsensical waste of the natural resources of Cambridgeshire should be cut off now and the misguided do-gooders who still support the scheme should realise that they are on to an all-time loser!

    Geoffrey Woollard

    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveOurFens

    ReplyDelete
  35. From the Ely Weekly News (2/7/2009):

    Letters

    No 'silent spring' out in the Fens

    Sir, it is wrong to say that a decline in bird life and insects is the fault of cereal farmers.

    I used until quite recently to farm cereals at Bottisham and I can assure your readers that we had lots of swallows, swifts and martins there. And Chalk Farm was never without a cuckoo or two.

    I now live in Swaffham Prior Fen, where cereals and some remarkable crops of vegetables are grown, and I can further assure your readers that, especially this year, the bird life is truly wonderful and varied and that insects of all sorts proliferate.

    Indeed, whilst my lime trees are constantly humming with bees and other welcome creatures, there are rather too many aphids around for my liking and the flies and mosquitoes are their usual summer nuisance.

    I am quite near to Wicken Fen and the National Trust boasts on its website of having 1,894 different species of fly there. The Trust also warns visitors to beware of mosquitoes.

    As to cuckoos, we have heard their call almost every day since April and they now start up at about 3.45 a.m.

    There is no 'silent spring' in the Fens and that is one of the reasons why I and my friends are campaigning to keep the fens actively farmed and not ruined by ignorant do-gooders.

    Geoffrey Woollard.
    Chapel Farm
    River Bank
    Near Upware

    ReplyDelete
  36. Message received 2/7/2009:

    Well done Geoffrey - a well written and punchy article.

    If only the 'Powers that be' would take note!

    Best wishes and keep up the good work

    S** R***

    ReplyDelete
  37. Message received 2/7/2009:

    Thanks for the e-mail, I have read both and found them very interesting. Heads and Brick Walls spring to mind, still maybe someone, someday will listen. We live in hopes!

    W**** M******

    ReplyDelete
  38. From the Burwell Bulletin (4/7/2009):

    Letters

    Concern about cattle

    Some poor woman was killed by cows in Yorkshire on Sunday last week, walking her dogs. I hope it doesn't take that round here before The National Trust realise that some of their larger animals are too much to be on public paths.

    Barry Garwood,
    Burwell.

    ReplyDelete
  39. From the Ely Weekly News (9/7/2009):

    Letters

    Sir, The on-line SaveOurFens E-Petition asking the Prime Minister to 'to stop the National Trust flooding or junglefying our Cambridgeshire Fens' has gained well over 350 names, many of them local to the area most likely to be affected by the Trust's so-called 'Wicken Vision'. And the campaign now has the support of several notable personalities.

    I was once described as a 'lone voice.' 'Lone voice, indeed. We now have a Fen army of lone voices all speaking from the same script and all demanding the same thing - that the National Trust stops this nonsense that is upsetting and worrying so many people. We are well on our way to winning this one.

    Among the notable personalities named as supporters are: district councillor Allen Alderson, of Reach; Cllr Fred Brown, leader of East Cambridgeshire District Council and county councillor for Littleport; Mr and Mrs Michael Delanoy, of Farmland Museum fame; district councillor Lavinia Edwards, of Burwell; Lord and Lady Fairhaven, of Kirtling Towers, formerly of Anglesey Abbey, Lode; county and district councillor Bill Hunt, of 'No To Mereham' fame; Henry Hurrell, of the old Allix family, long-time squires of Swaffham Prior, who owns land, farms extensively in Swaffham Fen and is Chairman of the Swaffham Internal Drainage Board; district councillor Peter Johnson, of Waterbeach; Janet Jeacock (widow of the late Michael Jeacock), formerly of Swaffham Bulbeck; members of the Marshall family, of Swaffham Prior; Mike Petty, of Cambridgeshire Collection fame; members of the Rayner farming family of Swaffham Bulbeck; district councillor Neil Scarr, of Fulbourn; Ben Turner, of Ben Burgess Newmarket Ltd., agricultural machinery dealers and engineers; Alan Wyatt, of Landbeach, former chairman of South Cambridgeshire District Council.

    The e-pettition can be found at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveOurFens/

    Geoffrey Woollard
    Chapel Farm
    River Bank
    Near Upware

    ReplyDelete
  40. Comment left on the Daily Telegraph website:

    I agree with Janet Daley but it's a pity that her piece hasn't appeared in, say, the Guardian, for sensible Telegraph readers are more likely, I guess, also to agree with her.

    I believe that Antony Gormley is a 'con-artist' in that he has succeeded in conning £300,000 out of the rest of us. ("The £300,000 fee for the [plinth] idea would go to Gormley." - The Times, January 9th, 2008). But he's also pretty clever in carrying out this 'con.' The fools are those who are funding the 'artistic' efforts of him and others like him. The story of the Emperor's new clothes come to mind constantly.

    Of course, for every con-artist, there are always plenty of punters ready to part with the readies (viz., the Bernard Madeoff fraud) but, in this case, the whole world must think that we Brits are unbelievably gullible.

    It doesn't stop, however. In my area of Cambridgeshire, there are still plans to build a £20-million so-called 'Bridge of Reeds' (with 'fairy lights' atop steel 'reeds' just right and ready to distract the traffic) over the A14 near Cambridge and intended to rival Gormley's 'Angel of The North.'

    The National Trust is behind this ridiculous and dangerous idea and, in these tight times, it is my opinion and that of many others who care about Cambridgeshire's fine Fen land and landscapes that Government and National Lottery funding for it should be cut off right now.

    For more details go to -

    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveOurFens/

    Geoffrey Woollard

    ReplyDelete
  41. Comment left on the Daily Telegraph website:

    I, also, believe in giving credit where credit is due and, whilst I can't stand much of Tony Benn's old Labour nonsense, his son Hilary is on the right track. Charlie Brooks is right.

    The trouble is that not enough in the 'green left' establishment take food production seriously. Tony Juniper lives in an unreal world. Sir Jonathon Porritt, Bart., is wrong on pretty well everything. And their hidden leader, the future King Charles III, is positively dangerous.

    In my area of the Cambridgeshire Fens, some of the finest food-growing land in Charles's future kingdom is planned by the National Trust to be 're-wetted' and 're-wilded.' This after 400 years of hard work and endless dosh devoted to draining the land. And we have loads of wildlife here right now without the intervention of ignorant do-gooders.

    But the Trust continues to grab land and its people have just delivered three more glossy brochures/leaflets about their so-called 'Wicken Vision' to my mailbox and, presumably, to hundreds of others.

    One of the leaflets, entitled 'Ambling with Animals,' is particularly interesting to me, a '95% retired' farmer living close enough to the so-called 'Vision' to see the truth of what is going on.

    The Trust claims that the recently introduced large grazing animals, Konik polski horses and Highland cattle (real old Fen breeds, eh?), are important to the so-called 'Vision' as managing such a substantial area (of former food-growing land) with machinery is not 'climate friendly or sustainable.'

    Perhaps the Trust's people will explain why it is that large machinery is being used on its land to cut down what must be an embarrassing amount of rubbish and thistles.

    And the leaflet rightly warns visitors to beware of the large animals. I am wondering what the Trust wants. Visitors? They are scared stiff. Wildlife? It is suffering from the cutting that's going on right now. To work amicably alongside its farming neighbours? They are receiving weed seeds on the wind from the Trust's land.

    This scheme is crazy and we locals, farmers and non-farmers, are appalled by what the Trust's so-called 'Vision' is already doing to us. The Trust needs to be exposed, as do Juniper, Porritt and Charles Windsor.

    To take a different and more realistic line, go to -

    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveOurFens/

    ReplyDelete
  42. Message received 17/7/2009:

    Great stuff Geoffrey!!

    Go for the jugular - preferably that of our shameful ‘heir’!!!

    D** x

    ReplyDelete
  43. Message received 18/7/2009:

    Well done, again!

    I do wish they'd realise (in Wicken) how man-labour intensive the old fen industries were ... the fen was a hugely productive 'wild' resource which was 'cropped' for sedge, peat, & fowl. There were wet pastures grazed by cattle but this was part of a mixed farmimg regime with other crops (not just cattle let loose to graze) & I think the pastures were attached to farms with other (silt fen ridge) field crops.

    There are some fascinating old 'day books' in the local museum I used to work in ... do you have any in your family still?

    Its amazing what was grown around Spalding at the turn of the 19thc.

    Best wishes
    M***

    ReplyDelete
  44. Comment left on the Daily Telegraph website:

    "And the politics of farming are so vital that they should be of national importance – our declining food security; the continuing loss of good agricultural land, Britain's most important national commodity, and the fact that home-grown food has a miniature carbon footprint compared to Peruvian asparagus, Zimbabwean beans, Egyptian potatoes and French milk. They are all imported in large quantities."

    As on so many previous occasions, my Cambridgeshire farming friend Robin Page is right again. This country with its 60-million population and deepening debt is soon going to be compelled to take home-grown food more seriously and to value its best agricultural land more highly.

    Sadly, in my part of the Cambridgeshire Fens, some of the finest food-growing land in the kingdom is planned by the National Trust to be 're-wetted' and 're-wilded' for its so-called 'Wicken Vision.' This after 400 years of hard work and endless expenditure devoted to draining the land. And we have lots of much-loved wildlife here right now without the intervention of ignorant do-gooders.

    For more details of our difficulties and a different Cambridgeshire opinion go to -

    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveOurFens/

    ReplyDelete
  45. Message received 20/7/2009:

    Well done, GW, in your comments and what a lot of other people had their comments made known too. The essence of all this is that common sense should prevail, and not to have decisions made and thrust upon us from the townies in power both at gov and NT levels. Carry on your good work!

    L****

    ReplyDelete
  46. From the Burwell Bulletin (18/7/2009):

    Letters

    Disneyfied Fens would be a backward step

    Weeds in the river, mosquitoes in our gardens and bath/bedrooms, dragonflies being encouraged and of course the Konik ponies, native to these parts (and Kazakhstan!) Nett result: the Disneyfication of the ‘greater Wicken Fen’ area.

    The British environment has been a saga of nurturing nature, from draining fenlands, minimising disease, helping grasslands evolve from steppe or marsh to wheat-lands and such as the grass at Wimbledon’s Centre Court. We go backwards at our peril, we reduce our food growing capacity and introduce insectborne diseases to our considerable disadvantage and risk.

    Do we really want to introduce adventure-park tourism to our fens with H&S approved walkways and paths and public toilets, waste bins, refreshment areas, activity centres, cafeterias, parking areas, roped off areas, staff training zones, security officers, smoking areas, sewerage disposal and waste collection systems? I’m losing the will to live.

    RS
    Burwell

    ReplyDelete
  47. From the Burwell Bulletin (18/7/2009):

    Support grows for Save our Fens on-line petition

    An on-line petition asking the Prime Minister to “to stop the National Trust flooding or junglefying our Cambridgeshire Fens” has gained over 350 names, many of them local to the area most likely to be affected by the Wicken Vision.

    And the campaign now has the support of several notable local personalities.

    The SaveOurFens E-Petition creator, Geoffrey Woollard, who describes himself as a '95% retired' farmer, said that he was once described as a 'lone voice.'

    “Lone voice, indeed” he says. “but we now have a Fen army of 'lone voices' all speaking from the same script and all demanding the same thing - that the National Trust stops this nonsense that is upsetting and worrying so many people.”

    Among the supporters of the petition are Mike Petty, of Cambridgeshire Collection fame, Mrs Janet Jeacock, widow of the late Mr Michael Jeacock and Lord and Lady Fairhaven formerly of Anglesey Abbey.

    ReplyDelete
  48. From the Ely Standard (23/7/2009):

    Letters

    National Trust's Scheme Is Crazy

    The National Trust's people have delivered three more glossy brochures/leaflets about their so-called 'Wicken Vision' to my mailbox and, presumably, to hundreds of others.

    One of the leaflets, entitled Ambling with Animals, is particularly interesting to me, as a 95 per cent retired farmer living close enough to the so-called Vision to see what is going on.

    The Trust claims that the recently introduced large grazing animals, Konik polski horses and Highland cattle (real old Fen breeds, eh?), are important to the Vision as managing such a substantial area (of former food-growing land) with machinery is not "climate friendly or sustainable". Perhaps the Trust's people will explain to your readers why it is that large machinery is being used on the Trust's land as I write to cut down what must be an embarrassing amount of rubbish and thistles.

    And the leaflet rightly warns visitors to beware of the large animals. I am wondering what the Trust wants. Visitors? They are scared stiff. Wildlife? It is suffering from the cutting that's going on right now. To work amicably alongside its farming neighbours? They are receiving weed seeds on the wind from the Trust's land.

    This scheme is crazy and we locals, farmers and non-farmers, are appalled by what the Trust is already doing to us.

    Geoffrey Woollard
    River Bank
    Upware

    ReplyDelete
  49. Message received 24/7/2009:

    Geoffrey

    Thanks for your letter of support in the Ely Standard. We went to an interesting meeting at Wicken last week, when Transport Consultants from Yorkshire presented about a dozen different designs for a new bridge (or underpass with aqueduct!) at Burwell cock-up. Another million well spent?

    keep up the good work

    B****

    ReplyDelete
  50. From the Cambridge News (24/7/2009):

    Letters

    Lacking vision

    From Geoffrey Woollard

    What's going on, may I ask?

    You have had a long letter from a Mr Soans of the National Trust. It contains a long diatribe against me and my friends who want to "SaveOurFens" from the trust's silly Wicken Vision that involves, despite what Mr Soans says, flooding parts of the thousands of acres of fine foodgrowing fen land between Wicken and the A14. Mr Soans is paid to be against me. Fair enough.

    But what mystifies me - and Mr Soans may know the answer - is why the Government (in the guise of the Environment Agency that has otherwise been very helpful to me) produced a "response" so early in the life of the online e-petition (http://petitions.num ber10.gov.uk/SaveOurFens/).

    The Government rightly praises the wonderful wildlife we have in the fens and, in short, says the so-called Wicken Vision is a good thing.

    Government responses to e-petitions usually appear at the end of the period allotted for signatures, but this e-petition started life in February and the Government response appeared in March. It's all getting to be a bit scary. Is the Government under the trust's control now, or am I missing something?

    What's going on, may I ask?

    May I also ask the trust's people why, having introduced Konik polski horses and Highland cattle to these Fens on the grounds that they are important to the so-called "vision" as managing such a substantial area (of former food-growing land) with machinery is not "climate friendly or sustainable", large machinery has been used on the trust's land at Tubney Fen to cut down what must be an embarrassing amount of rubbish and thistles?

    I am wondering what the trust wants. Visitors? They are scared stiff of the horses and cattle. Wildlife? It has suffered from the cutting that's been going on. To work amicably alongside its farming neighbours? They are receiving weed seeds on the wind from the trust's land. "Vision", maybe: sense, nul points!

    Chapel Farm
    Nr Upware

    ReplyDelete
  51. Message received 24/7/2009:

    Dear Geoffrey,

    If you have not seen it, your latest letter is in today's Cambridge News. It reads well and maintains the pressure.

    Kind regards,

    A***

    ReplyDelete
  52. From the Cambridge News (28/7/2009):

    Letters

    Tunnel vision

    The National Trust must be rattled: I see it has enlisted the support of no less a heavyweight than Tony Juniper, a big buddy of Prince Charles and the Green Party's candidate for Cambridge in the coming General Election.

    But what has he got to say in support of the Trust's so-called "Wicken Vision" and in opposition to those of us true Fen natives who are concerned about the loss of fine food-growing farm land? He rabbits on about the "global obesity epidemic" and remarks that we are "not collectively short of food".

    Well, I can remember food rationing and lots of our people being under-nourished. Perhaps he will see reality when we look like the starving stick-like people of much of Africa.

    Geoffrey Woollard
    Chapel Farm
    Ely

    ReplyDelete
  53. Comment left on the Daily Telegraph website:

    "It is a pity that the focus has been on nutrition. All food is nutritious; having no food is what kills."

    This is about the only point that is spot on in an otherwise off-beam article.

    While the world's population grows and while our own population exceeds sixty millions, we need to ensure that home food production, organic or otherwise, is maximised and that food imports from impoverished areas are minimised.

    Which is why I and many others who know the food-growing value of Grade 1 Fen land are fighting the National Trust's plans to take out of farming use several thousand acres of land in Cambridgeshire. The Trust's scheme - the £100-plus million so-called 'Wicken Vision' - represents a loss to the nation and an individual cost to every man, woman and child through the Government's well-meaning but short-sighted financial support of it via the use of taxpayers' cash.

    To SaveOurFens and support us go to -

    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveOurFens/

    ReplyDelete
  54. From the Cambridge News (1/8/2009):

    Letters

    Future is farms

    Cornelius Vermuyden came over from Holland to reclaim flooded land, mainly in Cambridgeshire, specifically to allow farming to take place. The land he reclaimed turned out to be some of the best farming land not just in the fens, but in the world.

    No doubt Cornelius would agree with Geoffrey Woollard, Michael Milner and others who have had letters published on the subject, that it would be sheer madness to undo his work. The wonderful things the Trust do are well known, but on this one I am sure they are wrong.

    It might be interesting for visitors to get the chance to see what Wicken Fen looked like hundreds of years ago before the Vermuyden scheme took place, but not for sure at the cost of acres of valuable farm land.

    With the overpopulation that is taking place we are going to need as much food growing space as possible or future generations are going to starve. The state of affairs in the world of today is bad enough without adding to the difficulties.

    Anyone interested in knowing more about Fen drainage should visit Oliver Cromwell's house in Ely where they have a very interesting film continuously showing on the subject.

    Donald MacKay
    Ferry Lane
    Chesterton
    Cambridge

    ReplyDelete
  55. From the Ely Weekly News (6/8/2009):

    Letters

    Trust is wrong on fen vision

    Sir, Cornelius Vermuyden came over from Holland to reclaim flooded land, mainly in Cambridgeshire, specifically to allow farming to take place. The land he reclaimed turned out to be some of the best farming land not just in the fens, but in the world.

    No doubt Cornelius would agree with Geoffrey Woollard, Michael Milner and others who have had letters published on the subject, that it would be sheer madness to undo his work. The wonderful things the Trust do are well known, but on this one I am sure they are wrong.

    It might be interesting for visitors to get the chance to see what Wicken Fen looked like hundreds of years ago before the Vermuyden scheme took place, but not for sure at the cost of acres of valuable farm land.

    With the overpopulation that is taking place we are going to need as much food growing space as possible or future generations are going to starve. The state of affairs in the world of today is bad enough without adding to the difficulties.

    Anyone interested in knowing more about Fen drainage should visit Oliver Cromwell's house in Ely where they have a very interesting film continuously showing on the subject.

    Donald MacKay
    Ferry Lane
    Chesterton
    Cambridge

    ReplyDelete
  56. From the Ely Weekly News (6/8/2009(:

    Letters

    Land needed to grow vital crops

    Sir, The National Trust must be rattled: I see that their people have enlisted the support of no less a heavyweight than Tony Juniper (Green leader pushes vision – Weekly News, July 23), a big buddy of Prince Charles and the Green Party's candidate for Cambridge in the coming General Election.

    But what has the well-fleshed Mr Juniper got to say in support of the Trust's so-called “Wicken Vision” and in opposition to those of us true Fen natives who are concerned about the loss of fine food-growing farm land? He rabbits on about the “global obesity epidemic” and remarks that we are “not collectively short of food”.

    Well, I have a long memory and I can recall food rationing and lots of our people being under-nourished. Perhaps Mr Juniper will start to see reality when we in England look like the starving stick-like people of much of Africa.

    Geoffrey Woollard
    Chapel Farm
    River Bank
    near Upware

    ReplyDelete
  57. From the Cambridge News (6/8/2009):

    Letters

    Food facts

    From Tony Juniper

    Geoffrey Woollard attacks my involvement in the promotion of the Wicken Fen vision on the grounds that he can remember food rationing. I can remember mobile phones the size of a small suitcase, but I don't expect them to come back any time soon.

    Perhaps if Mr Woollard got a little more up to date he might be inclined to call for less food waste, rather than continuing with his misguided campaign to block the much-needed restoration of more natural fenland habitats.

    The fact is that in the UK about a third of our food goes in the bin, which means that about a third of the land growing food for us is feeding waste tips rather than people. And yes, there is a global obesity epidemic under way.

    We are not short of food in this country and therefore the arguments used to attack the National Trust's vision appear to be deliberately misleading.

    Only 0.3 per cent of the original fen remains in anything like a natural state. In our environmentally stressed world the expansion of Wicken Fen is a beacon of hope and inspiration. I was there last week and hundreds of people evidently thought the same thing, enjoying walks in wild nature that would otherwise not be possible in our over-crowded and intensively farmed corner of England.

    Green Party Parliamentary
    candidate for Cambridge

    ReplyDelete
  58. Comment left on The Independent website:

    Hilary Benn is right again!

    I have just seen Hilary Benn on BBC TV and I wrote down three direct quotes from him:

    'We've already seen food riots in other countries'

    'We are going to need a big increase in food production'

    'I want British farmers to produce as much food as possible'

    Mr Benn is right, but the authorities are still supporting officially in my area of the Cambridgeshire Fens the National Trust's so-called 'Wicken Vision' which is already taking out of food production thousands of acres of the finest food-growing farm land in the country, nay, the world.

    We need some joined-up government here and a stop to this lunacy which, believe it or not, has the support of the Green guru in Cambridge, Mr Tony Juniper.

    For more details go to -

    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveOurFens/

    ReplyDelete
  59. Message received 9/8/2009:

    Quite right Geoffrey, and don't forget the Ragwort on its land which the National Trust cannot control without a huge increase in its costs.

    M****** M*******

    ReplyDelete
  60. Message received 9/8/2009:

    Thank you Geoffrey - this really reinforces your argument, doesn't it - and reflects what a lot of local people are saying.

    best regards

    P**

    ReplyDelete
  61. Message received 9/8/2009:

    Well, that should put the kibosh on the NT's plan's, unless of course someone invents a new food derived from mosquitoes!

    J****

    ReplyDelete
  62. Message received 9/8/2009:

    Keep at 'em Geoffrey!

    S**

    ReplyDelete
  63. Message received 9/8/2009:

    Hello Geoffrey,

    This from today's Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/house-and-home/gardening/digging-for-victory-britains-food-revolution-1769697.html

    Rather backs up what you are saying.

    Regards

    R*****.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Message received 10/8/2009:

    There was a timely piece in the national news today about the need to have the ability to produce as much food as possible from all sources...the world will need it soon if it does not need it today.

    regards

    J*******

    ReplyDelete
  65. From the Cambridge News (10/8/2009):

    Letters

    Ruining land

    From Geoffrey Woollard

    I have just read Tony Juniper's extraordinary letter (August 6) and can only assume that he and the Green Party are desperate for local publicity.

    For the record, I didn't write to you about mobile telephones: I wrote to you about the dreadful loss of food-growing Fen land involved in the National Trust's so-called "Wicken Vision", which is taking thousands of acres out of food production.

    For the record, I don't deny that we waste too much food, a lot of it imported.

    For the record, I have some sympathy with those who claim we were better fed and less obese when we had compulsory food rationing during and after the Second World War.

    And, for the record, I too am concerned about there being too many people in our overcrowded country.

    But what does Mr Juniper want?

    To take more good land out of food production? To bring back food rationing on the grounds that it would cure our obesity? Or to rid ourselves of a substantial proportion of our population?

    The world (or maybe just Cambridgeshire) is awaiting answers from our local Green guru. In the meantime, local farmers and many others are more and more revolted by the ruination of the land that the National Trust now controls through its ever-expanding "Vision".

    River Bank
    Ely

    ReplyDelete
  66. Message received 10/8/2009:

    Hi

    Gosh!! I think you certainly rattle his cage, I hope he listened to the TV news this morning, at least someone is listening to the food security line.... Long may it continue.

    Harvest cracks on with us, yields varying enormously, a bumper year, I think not! With prices as low as they are I feel the poverty pleading beginning.

    Have a great Monday,
    C****

    ReplyDelete
  67. Message received 10/8/2009:

    Good on yer Geoffrey, think Mr Juniper needs a little enlightenment!

    Sure that he will now receive further attacks!

    You can count on our continued support.

    The M*******

    ReplyDelete
  68. Message received 10/8/2009:

    Dear Geoffrey,

    I had already perused your letter in today's Cambridge News; looks fine. I also watch the early morning News about the need for good agricultural land. Very interesting, which proves that we have got it right and the rest of them are wrong.

    Kind regards,

    A***

    ReplyDelete
  69. Message received 10/8/2009:

    Dear Geoffrey,

    More debate may well come from this. Well done.

    R**** R.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Message received 10/8/2009:

    Indeed!

    And Mr Green Guru obviously hasn't read Hilary Benn's latest contribution, that indeed rationing could return, and we may well be short of food in the future.

    I've sent an offering to the Telegraph but I doubt they'll print it!

    best wishes, as ever

    M***

    ReplyDelete
  71. From the Cambridge News (11/8/2009):

    Rethink on farms too late for some

    The way we produce and consume food needs a "radical rethink", according to the Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn.

    But while he was assessing the threats to the security of what we eat, one prominent Cambridgeshire farmer says he is constantly producing less because the prices he gets from supermarkets are forever spiralling downwards.

    Cllr Ray Manning, the leader of South Cambridgeshire District Council, is a fruit farmer based in Willingham in a business built up over three generations.

    But he says he will be the last farmer in the family, as there is no economic future in the business.

    It has been estimated that food production will have to rise by 70 per cent by 2050 to feed a global population of nine billion.

    Mr Benn said he wanted British farmers to produce as much as possible, but also take account of the need to tackle global warming emissions - to which agriculture is a significant contributor.

    He said: "Last year the world had a wake-up call with the sudden oil and food price rises. While we know the price of our food, the full environmental costs and the costs to our health are significant and hidden.

    "We need a radical rethink of how we produce and consume our food. Globally we need to cut emissions and adapt to the changing climate that will alter what we can grow and where we can grow it.

    "We must maintain the natural resources - soils, water, and biodiversity - on which food production depends."

    But Cllr Manning says price is the key issue and, in real terms, many farmers are getting less for what they produce than 10, 20 or even 30 years ago.

    He said: "In the 1980s, wheat was £150 a ton. It's less than £100 now. The farmer is getting one-third less than 30 years ago.

    "I produce fruit - apples, pears, plums and some apricots. I have not had a price rise from the supermarkets for 20 years. The price for apricots is less than in 2006.

    "I had Cox's apple trees than were 15 years old. I put a bulldozer through them.

    "We've been here since the 1920s. In the 1980s we had 90 acres of fruit. Now we have less than 40. The land is just grassland."

    He said his biggest cost is labour, about 60 per cent of the total, and the work is very labour intensive.

    He said: "Fruit growing is a low-tech industry. We have to hand-thin the crops, we pick by hand and the fruit is graded by hand.

    "China is now the biggest apple producer in the world. They are paying the same amount a day in wages as we do per hour.

    "People want to buy things as cheaply as they possibly can. If people can buy apples from the southern hemisphere cheaper than mine, they will. The supermarkets dictate the price."

    He wants a "lighter touch" from Government in terms of regulation and said farmers on the continent benefit from regimes which have a more relaxed interpretation of the laws.

    ReplyDelete
  72. From the Cambridge News (11/8/2009)(continued):

    Cllr Manning employs between 10 and 20 people at peak production - but he employed double that number a few years ago.

    He said cheap prices meant the proportion of the average household wage spent on food was lower now than since the 1940s and 1950s.

    Mr Benn suggested genetically modified (GM) food could be part of the solution to increase production.

    He said: "If GM can make a contribution then we have a choice as a society and as a world about whether to make use of that technology, and an increasing number of countries are growing GM products.

    "Because one thing is certain - with a growing population, the world is going to need a lot of farmers and a lot of agricultural production in the years ahead."

    Geoffrey Wollard, of River Bank, near Upware, took issue with Mr Benn's claims he wants British farmers to produce as much food as possible.

    He said: "Mr Benn is 100 per cent right, but the authorities are still supporting officially in my area of the Cambridgeshire fens the National Trust's so-called Wicken Vision, which is already taking out of food production thousands of acres of the finest food-growing farmland in the country, nay, the world.

    "We need some joined-up Government here and a stop to this lunacy."

    Whatever happens in the future for farming, Cllr Manning will be the last to tend the family's fruit trees.

    He said: "My grandfather started the company. My son works elsewhere. There's no future in it."

    ReplyDelete
  73. Message received 12/8/2009:

    Dear Geoffrey,

    What a silly letter from T Juniper. He has completely missed the point of your excellent letter. If I needed any dissuading from voting for him (which I don't) this would have clinched it!

    Best Wishes,

    M*****

    ReplyDelete
  74. Message received 12/8/2009:

    Good answer....wonder if Tony has SEEN Tubney....or tried walking there? Hope the buzzies sting him!

    L****

    ReplyDelete
  75. Message received 13/8/2009:

    Dear Geoffrey,

    Juniper has had another roasting in today's Cambridge News.

    Regards,

    A***

    ReplyDelete
  76. From the Cambridge News (13/8/2009):

    Letters

    Grow more food

    Tony Juniper is obviously too young to comprehend the impact that food rationing had during and after the war (Letters, August 6).

    If he did he would not have made such a frivolous analogy with mobile phones. He seems certain that food shortages could never happen again, and comfortable that the UK has to rely on imports of all its staples. Perhaps he should ponder on the current precarious state of our gas supply, maintained at the whim of eastern block countries.

    We all agree with Mr Juniper that food waste should be reduced. However, his conclusion that we need to grow one third less is ludicrous. Reducing UK production will only increase our reliance on imports. His "We're all right, Jack" attitude seems somewhat at odds with the core principle of the Green Party to "take account of the wellbeing of other nations".

    Mr Juniper represents a party which is also committed to sourcing its food supply locally. Perhaps he can explain how destroying thousands of acres of the most fertile land in the country will expedite this objective.

    Graham Smith
    Harlton Road
    Little Eversden

    ReplyDelete
  77. From the Ely Standard (13/8/2009):

    Letters

    We Need Joined Up Government Thinking On Food Production

    I have just seen Hilary Benn on television and I wrote down three direct quotes from him.

    "We've already seen food riots in other countries."

    "We are going to need a big increase in food production."

    "I want British farmers to produce as much food as possible."

    Mr Benn is 100 per cent right, but the authorities are still supporting officially in my area of the Cambridgeshire Fens the National Trust's Wicken Vision which is already taking out of food production of thousands of acres of the finest food-growing farm land in the country, nay, the world.

    We need some joined-up government here and a stop to this lunacy which, believe it or not, has the support of the Green guru in Cambridge, Mr Tony Juniper.

    Geoffrey Woollard
    Chapel Farm
    River Bank
    Upware

    ReplyDelete
  78. Message received 13/8/2009:

    Keep it up Geoffrey. D** M*****

    ReplyDelete
  79. Message received 17/8/2009:

    Geoffrey,

    Not sure if you have seen this on the Cambridge News web site and there are two more in today's printed version.

    http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_letters/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=441265

    Regards

    A*** J****

    ReplyDelete
  80. From the Burwell Bulletin (15/8/2009):

    Dragon flies, trees and concern for animals

    'Dragon Fly Centre for Wicken would bring in more tourists', we learn. But I cannot get my head round this as welcome news for what was conserved for wildlife and safeguarded by limited access. Pulling more people to the fen is distinctively bad news, offered in a spirit of rejoicing, ignoring the original ideal.

    I have to wonder if those now in charge of Wicken Fen have been trained for showbusiness. There is so much that they do wrong. For instance they have yet to see the point of preserving a fringe of reeds on both sides of Wicken Lode and Monks' Lode, a lure for Reed Buntings and all else waterbound. No, they prefer to abide by the tidiness of the front lawn in vogue today. And in the land below Wicken more recently taken over by them, they cannot see a tree without mutilating it to prove their presence.

    The need to pollard willows is long past. The perpetrators see it still as a necessary part of conservation but it is destructive. Other trees were mutilated too, including two tall Poplars in their prime planted as windbreaks by a farmer, cut down to eight feet off the ground. Now they are quite dead.

    And your correspondent, Barry Garwood, rightly questions the purpose of bringing in unindigenous animals to graze the fen. My own concern for these animals is for their welfare in such heat as we had in June where there is scarcely any opportunity for shade. During the hot summer of two years ago the ponies all crammed under the large willow and three smaller pollarded willows on the Monks' Lode Bank, but a year on from the ignored lesson of that heat the wardens cut that huge tree down to about ten feet from the ground.

    Anthony Day, Wicken

    ReplyDelete
  81. From the Burwell Bulletin 15/8/2009:

    Food production and the fens

    I have just seen Hilary Benn on BBC TV and I wrote down three direct quotes from him:

    'We've already seen food riots in other countries'

    'We are going to need a big increase in food production'

    'I want British farmers to produce as much food as possible'

    Mr Benn is 100% right, but the authorities are still supporting officially in my area of the Cambridgeshire Fens the National Trust's socalled 'Wicken Vision' which is already taking out of food production thousands of acres of the finest food-growing farm land in the country, nay, the world.

    We need some joined-up government here and a stop to this lunacy which, believe it or not, has the support of the Green guru in Cambridge, Mr Tony Juniper.

    Geoffrey Woollard

    ReplyDelete
  82. From the Cambridge News (17/8/2009):

    Letters

    Grow more food

    I find it hard to detect a truly green policy behind the claims of Tony Juniper that we are surfeited of food in this country that he feel no qualms about sacrificing 1,300 acres of fertile land to further the vapid dream that is the "Wicken Vision".

    Once we walked into small shops where the food was handed over the counter, the quantity countrywide known; today supermarket excess is clearly overwhelming to Mr Juniper; more expensive than cheap now that they have complete control. But how much of it is home produce?

    The fact is we need more and shall need more still serving the economy, saving fuel, guaranteeing freshness and flavour; I have had bananas straight from tropical trees; you get nothing like that here. We need our fruit orchards back and all things English extended.

    I would never willingly oppose wildlife habitat, but I have to say once more that the one we originally had a Wicken is now little more than a theme park, a holiday camp, using the slogan: "There is something for everybody at Wicken Fen." Well there should not be under National Trust ownership.

    Wicken Fen sits several feet higher than the surrounding landscape from its build-up of peat and the adjacent erosion and is no guide to the problems that would accrue in artificially converting those vast acres, always fighting the drainage system in place. They give themselves 100 years which indicates the vagueness of their plan. Wait until then and nature may do the job for them. But not to uplift the human spirit!

    They are propelled, of course, by vast funding such as would be able to restore the original ideals of the present Fen and break the silence of naturalists on its true purpose. Meanwhile all those living adjacent to the planned disruption will suffer considerably for years ahead.

    Anthony Day
    Pond Green
    Wicken

    ReplyDelete
  83. From the Cambridge News (17/8/2009):

    Letters

    Waste of land

    I must concur with Geoffrey Woollard (Letters, August 10), in respect of the National Trust's so-called "Wicken Vision".

    A government report has jus concluded that the UK must produce more of its food at home, as we now import 37 per cent of it and need to become more self sufficient.

    At the same time the "Wicken Vision" is taking thousands of acres out of food production.

    The draining of the Fens was one of the greatest engineering feats in history, creating fertile land from flooded fields, capable of providing the country with food self-sufficiency.

    One can only surmise that the National Trust and the Green Party would be happy to return the Great Fens to the days when malaria-carrying mosquitoes dominated the area, causing hundreds of human fatalities.

    Alan Seymour
    Morley Drive
    Ely

    ReplyDelete
  84. From the Cambridge News (18/8/2009):

    Letters

    New challenges

    From Tony Juniper

    Geoffrey Woollard continues with his simplistic attack on the National Trust's vision for Wicken Fen (Letters, August 10) and asks what I want in relation to land use.

    He is joined by Graham Smith (August 6), who in addition to misrepresenting some of my earlier points, seeks clarification as to how Green Party agricultural policy can promote the wellbeing of other countries.

    Mr Woollard, what I want to see is more sustainable land use. That means the simultaneous promotion of conservation, climate change, natural resources, health and food objectives all at once - not the over-simplistic prioritisation of one as more important than the others.

    This is far more than an academic discussion. Looking back to the post-war era and food rationing for defining lessons is not rational. The challenge now is far more complicated.

    If human kind is to thrive in the decades ahead, we must urgently reduce biodiversity loss, cut greenhouse gas emissions, conserve natural resources and find ways to produce food more sustianably. These were not issues in the 1940s and 50s, but they are now.

    I believe the Wicken Fen vision to be an important example of how we can rise to the modern challenge. Expanding the fen will protect biodiversity, store carbon, hold water, promote health while impacting on food production to only a small degree. The difference it will make in this latter respect could be offset many times over by wasting less.

    Mr Smith, one of the reasons why many growers in developing countries struggle to make a living is because of the very same subsidies that have supported unsustainable farming in Western Europe. Farm subsidies here mean poor farmers can't compete on price, while the "dumping" of surplus production in developing countries has created chaos in local food markets, putting farmers out of work and spreading poverty.

    This is why the Green Party has focused on the scandal of environmentally and socially damaging farm subsidies and has called for reforms to world trade rules, including ending "dumping". Simply urging more food production will not achieve an end to poverty and hunger - change needs to go much deeper.

    Green Party Parliamentary
    Candidate for Cambridge
    Belvoir Road
    Cambridge

    ReplyDelete
  85. Message received 18/8/2009:

    Dear Mr Woollard

    Thank you for telephoning regarding my recent letter to the CEN. I have been away for a week so have only just retrieved the message.

    Keep fighting!

    Kind Regards

    G***** S****

    ReplyDelete
  86. From the Ely Weekly News (20/8/2009):

    Letters

    Looking back to '50s, not on

    Sir, Geoffrey Woollard attacks my support for the National Trust's vision for Wicken Fen. He is joined on the same page by Donald MacKay, who makes similar points about what he sees as a choice between sustaining our environment and producing food (Ely Weekly News, August 6). Mr Woollard's criticisms of the National Trust's vision appear to rest principally on his recollections of food rationing. While this was understandably an important driver of food policy in the post-war years, times have moved on. Today the challenges bound up with food production are not simply about converting as much land as possible to intensive farming, they are linked to a whole range of sustainability challenges that were simply not on the agenda back in the 1950s.

    Today we must pursue the simultaneous promotion of conservation, climate change,, natural resources, health and food objectives all at once - not the over-simplistic prioritisation of one as more important than the others. This is far more than an academic discussion. The world faces several serious an colliding trends during the 21st century, and they all need to be anticipated and managed in a joined-up way. Looking back to the post-war era and food rationing for the defining lesson as to how we manage land in the 21st century is simply not rational.

    If human kind is to thrive in the decades ahead, we must urgently reduce biodiversity loss, cut greenhouse gas emissions, conservative natural resources and find ways to produce food more sustainably. Industrial farming of the kind that Mr MacKay and Woollard appear to advocate is not sustainable, not least because of the impact it has on the land. The post-war years have seen a massive world-wide loss and degradation of soils, including in the fens where in some areas the once rich peat soil has eroded away nearly completely.

    I don't think this is what Cornelius Vermuyden had in mind, but it is an increasingly serious consequence of how we have farmed over recent decades. I believe the National Trust's Wicken Fen vision to be an important example of how we can rise to the modern challenge. Expanding the fen will protect biodiversity, store carbon, hold water, promote better health while impacting on food production to only a small degree. The difference it will make in this latter respect could be offset many times over by wasting less food.

    Tony Juniper
    Green Party parliamentary candidate for Cambridge
    Belvoir Road
    Cambridge

    ReplyDelete
  87. From the Ely Weekly News (20/8/2009):

    Newspaper Cutting (Ely Weekly News) 20/8/2009:

    Letters

    Vision would cut food production

    Sir, I must concur with Geoffrey Woollard in respect of the National Trust's so-called "Wicken Vision".

    A government report has just concluded that the UK must produce more of its food at home, as we now import 37 per cent of it and need to become more self sufficient.

    At the same time the "Wicken Vision" is taking thousands of acres out of food production.

    The draining of the Fens was one of the greatest engineering feats in history, creating fertile land from flooded fields, capable of providing the country with food self-sufficiency.

    One can only surmise that the National Trust and the Green Party would be happy to return the Great Fens to the days when malaria-carrying mosquitoes dominated the area, causing hundreds of human fatalities.

    Alan Seymour
    Morley Drive
    Ely

    ReplyDelete
  88. From the Ely Weekly News (20/8/2009):

    Letters

    Growing jungle difficult to stop

    Having read most of the letters about The Wicken Fen Vision, it seems to me that what the National Trust says is what it intends to happen, while Mr Woollard says what will happen.

    Judging by the management system on the land taken over by the National Trust, I think it is beyond the graduate mind to stop the jungle from developing.

    I have to ask if the trust will declare the droves as "access only". I can only assume the reason will be a fire risk assessment or, perhaps, the fear that our dogs will upset the nesting birds!

    Alfred Sennitt
    West Fen Road
    Ely

    ReplyDelete
  89. From the Cambridge News (25/8/2009):

    Letters

    Just a mirage

    Tony Juniper accuses me of being simplistic in my attitude to the National Trust's so-called "Wicken Vision" and suggests that I am "not rational".

    Well, I and my most recent correspondent friends, Tony Day of Wicken, Don MacKay of Cambridge, Alfred Sennitt and Alan Seymour of Ely and Graham Smith of Little Eversden, may be both simplistic and irrational - I'm happy to let your readers decide - but in our simplistic and irrational way we can all see that top-quality food-producing land deliberately removed from food production means less food produced here - and more food coming from "abroad".

    If those "abroad" can no longer produce the food, spare the food or won't sell us any or we cannot afford to buy it, the result is that we have less food for ourselves. It is utterly stupid to take out of food production the finest food producing land in England at a time when it is increasingly apparent that we as a country have to prepare for a global population of 9 billion plus and the possibility of climate change adversely affecting the food supplies of many of the world's people, including our own 60 million.

    I don't often praise members of the Benn family, having regarded "old" Tony as somewhat "swivel-eyed", but "young" Hilary is 100 per cent right in calling for a big increase in food production here at home. Who is going to argue against the Defra secretary? I am not and I suggest the "Green" Mr Juniper desists, too. Intelligent people just won't go with Mr Juniper and against "young" Hilary Benn on this issue and Mr Juniper should stop acting like a middle-aged "Swampy" struggling towards a "vision" that is already a mirage.

    Geoffrey Woollard
    River Bank
    Ely

    ReplyDelete
  90. Message received 25/8/2009:

    Geoffrey,

    Great reply in the News!

    R**** R.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Message received 25/8/2009:

    Well done Geoffrey!!

    Keep at it. The tree huggers may be right in many areas, but downright stupid when it comes to the Fen!

    Much love D**

    ReplyDelete
  92. Message received 25/8/2009:

    Them's fighting words Geoffrey......

    C****

    ReplyDelete
  93. Message received 25/8/2009:

    They read well and I would hope that the facts soon start to dawn on the public at large.

    A***

    ReplyDelete
  94. Message received 25/8/2009:

    Dear Geoffrey,

    Well done!!

    Cheers,

    J****

    ReplyDelete
  95. Message received 25/8/2009:

    I have just read your article in the C.E.N. and whole heartily agree.

    M.B.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Message received 25/8/2009:

    Excellent stuff!

    best wishes

    M***

    ReplyDelete
  97. Message received 25/8/2009:

    Read your letter in tonight’s evening paper. VG.

    S**

    ReplyDelete
  98. Message received 26/8/2009:

    EXCELLENT reply to GREENY....I wonder just how many of his party support his stupid argument!

    Publicity is the name of the game.....KEEP IT UP!!!!

    L****

    ReplyDelete
  99. Message received 26/8/2009:

    Finding your letters to the Green Party rather interesting.

    Now I know why I don't vote Green!

    Keep up the good work, all the best, E****

    ReplyDelete
  100. From the Ely Weekly News (27/8/2009):

    Letters

    Food is also a morality issue

    Sir, Tony Juniper accuses me of looking back to the 1950s. (Looking back to the 50s, not on – Letters, Aug 20).

    Well, I can look back to the 1930s (just!) and the 1940s as well as the 1950s and I accept that Mr Juniper may not remember or know much about the food and other rationing that we had then.

    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (George Santayana). Quite frankly, I would rather not repeat the 1940s or the 1950s so far as the availability of food is concerned nor would I wish our younger people to have the experiences that I had then for want of sensible attitudes to the best of our natural resources, our fine food-producing Cambridgeshire Fen land.

    I, and my most recent correspondent friends - Tony Day of Wicken, Don MacKay of Cambridge, Alfred Sennitt and Alan Seymour of Ely and Graham Smith of Little Eversden - can all see that top-quality food-producing land deliberately removed from food production for the National Trust's so-called Wicken Vision means less food produced here and less food produced here means more food coming from abroad.

    If those abroad can no longer produce the food or cannot spare the food or won't sell us the food or we cannot afford to buy the food, the result is that we have less food for ourselves. Mr Juniper claims that “times have moved on”. Sure, they have, but so have the populations of most countries in the world. It is even more stupid now to take out of food production the finest food-producing land in England at a time when it is increasingly apparent that we as a country - and we with responsibilities in the wider world - have to prepare for a global population of nine billions plus and the possibility of climate change adversely affecting the food supplies of many of the world's presently existing people including our own sixty million.

    This issue is as much about morality as it is reality. The reality is that the world is becoming increasingly short of food and it is close to immoral to import unnecessarily from those who have less than us already. Hilary Benn is 100 per cent right in calling for a big increase in food production here at home. Who is going to argue against the DEFRA Secretary? I am not and I respectfully suggest that the Mr Juniper desists, too. He should stop acting like a middle-aged “Swampy” striving towards a “vision” that is already a mirage.

    Geoffrey Woollard
    Chapel Farm
    Upware

    ReplyDelete
  101. From the Cambridge News (31/8/2009):

    Letters

    Cattle danger

    I have often found myself agreeing with Tony Juniper , but I feel he is misguided on Wicken Fen (Letters, August 18).

    He speaks of the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but the highland cattle that have been introduced to the area, to manage the environment through grazing, produce vast amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas that is much more harmful than carbon dioxide.

    That aside, the cattle wander freely on public rights of way, intimidating local people and sometimes stampeding when dogs are present, particularly when they have young calves. I myself have been forced to turn back and take a lengthy detour.

    Several people have been killed by cattle recently around the country and many others injured, including former home secretary, David Blunkett, who was walking with his guide dog at the time. The usual advice is to let dogs off the lead, but this is not practical all the time. Are blind people really expected to let their dogs loose?

    The result is that many rights of way have become unusable and others are destined for the same treatment. Perhaps Mr. Juniper could tell me if it is really Green Party policy to obstruct public paths in this way? His argument doesn't seem to add up.

    Barry Garwood
    Ness Road
    Burwell

    ReplyDelete
  102. To Ely today for a meeting of the Planning Committee (ably chaired by Cllr. Philip Read) of East Cambridgeshire District Council. Members were to discuss a proposal from the National Trust for a new and large bridge over Reach Lode. All of the Parish Councils most affected - Burwell, Reach and Swaffham Prior - had sent in very critical comments and I, also, had sent in a letter of objection that read as follows:

    "Proposed New Bridge over Reach Lode - The National Trust

    I write to OBJECT to the application by the National Trust to erect a new bridge over Reach Lode.

    I regard the proposed new bridge as an obtrusive and unneeded excrescence in these otherwise attractive Fens. Swaffham Prior and Reach Fens, in particular, are known for their expansive and unimpeded landscapes, vistas and skyscapes, and they want not this National Trust erection.

    This bridge, if erected, would be large enough to be visible from my house in Swaffham Prior Fen and from many residences in both Reach and Swaffham Prior. (I am a member of Swaffham Prior Parish Council, the members of which, at an extraordinary meeting held last evening, voted unanimously to oppose the application).

    As an enthusiastic supporter of the retention of the Cambridgeshire Lodes in their present form, I note - though I still have fears - that some efforts have been made by the Trust's 'experts' to avoid disturbing and/or endangering the integrity of Reach Lode, its banks and its associated rights, including navigation, but the efforts have resulted, of necessity, in plans for a structure that would, with its associated access ramps, etc., and railings, be absolutely enormous in relation to the Lode, its banks and the surrounding countryside. An analogy - and I exaggerate but slightly to make my point - might be the Orwell Bridge at Ipswich which, though beautiful in its own way, sticks in the eye as monstrous in relation to the river and to the surrounding Suffolk countryside. The proposed new bridge over Reach Lode would look equally monstrous in relation to the Lode and to our Cambridgeshire Fens. And, of course, the Orwell Bridge fulfils a local and national need: none such exists for a bridge over Reach Lode.

    The National Trust appears to have based its case upon the bizarre assumption that visitors to Anglesey Abbey, a National Trust property, are likely to desire to push on to Wicken Fen, another National Trust property, on foot, by bicycle, or on horseback. The new bridge, as I understand it, is intended to respond to the assumed desire by helping to facilitate a 'through-route.' Presumably, if some visitors to yet another National Trust property, Wimpole Hall, were to express a similar desire to make their way via a 'through-route' to both Anglesey Abbey and Wicken Fen, the Trust would be bothering all of the communities on that 'through-route' in order to meet that desire.

    The National Trust should learn - or should be made to learn - that an assumed desire is not necessarily a need. There is no need for a new bridge over Reach Lode where one has not existed before and where one so large is not wanted now. This is a bridge too far.

    Though it is not a planning matter, I am also appalled by the estimated cost of the proposed new bridge and associated access ramps, etc., which, according to the Trust itself, is budgeted at £370,000. (I understand that the cost of the whole Anglesey Abbey to Wicken Fen 'through-route' could be as high as £1,400,000). To me and to others, this is beyond all reason in these straitened times.

    I hope that members of the appropriate Committee(s) of your Council will give careful consideration to the points that I have made. As a former member of the Council with a lifetime's knowledge of the area, I do not make them frivolously, lightly or without due thought and care."

    ReplyDelete
  103. I was allowed to speak briefly at the meeting as a member of the public, making three points: first, that my letter of objection had been 'cut down, sliced up and summarised' (I then distributed full and unexpurgated copies of the letter to the Councillors who were present); second that, even if members didn't wish to agree with all of my points, the opinions of the three Parish Councils and other objectors should be taken proper account of; and, third, that if members of the Committee were minded to refuse the application and run the risk of an appeal by the all-powerful National Trust, then, even if criticised by a government-appointed planning inspector at a later date, they could hold their heads high provided they were seen to have done their duty by the people.

    In the event, though the proposal was recommended for approval, several District Councillors complained bitterly and vociferously regarding the lack of information provided by the Trust and especially the absence of an artist's impression of what the proposed bridge would look like.

    It was unanimously agreed that a decision be deferred until more information was forthcoming and until a site visit by members could be arranged.

    I want particularly to thank Cllr. Allen Alderson, who represents 'The Swaffhams' Ward and, though not a member of the Planning Committee, took the trouble to attend the meeting and to speak splendidly, at length and in considerable detail. He represented his people well, as did Cllr. David Brown of Burwell.

    I came home from the lovely City of Ely satisfied that it was an afternoon well spent.

    ReplyDelete
  104. From the Ely Weekly News (3/9/2009):

    Letters

    Not a vision of fen tranquility

    Sir, Your paper last week contained several reports of activities connected with the National Trust's Wicken Fen nature reserve and the trust has recently drawn attention to its having organised the following: Wild Child Pack, Fen Pirates Go Wild, Pony Party, Wildlife Detectives, Wicken Warriors, Pond Pandemonium, Wild Art, and Mini-Beast Hunting For All.

    What has all this to do with Wicken Fen being a quiet nature reserve and is this a sign of what is to come for Wicken and for the rest of us and the poor hunted wildlife who live nearby?

    Some have said that the so-called 'Wicken Vision' really envisages a giant theme park. I didn't believe them at first: maybe they were right.

    If your readers would like to assist with our resistance to the Wicken Vision and are connected to the internet, please go to our on-line 'SaveOurFens' E-Petition at - http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveOurFens/

    Geoffrey Woollard
    Chapel Farm
    Upware

    ReplyDelete
  105. From the Ely Standard (3/9/2009):

    Letters

    Food waste part of problem

    I checked the current Ely Standard to see if Mr G Woollard had sent in his continuing letter crusade against the Wicken Fen Vision. There it was in all its glory. He reminds me of all those people in the USA using any argument to defeat President Obama's efforts to improve medical services for the poor.

    No doubt his quotes from Hilary Benn were accurate but, of course, that was not the full story.

    When discussing food production we need to consider the enormous amount of food waste in the UK and most western countries. Most of the problems of food shortages could be solved if we did not waste so much. Reducing the incidence of obesity would help too.

    At Wicken the loss of farmland amounts to 0.01 per cent of arable farmland in the UK so far and will reach just 0.16 in 100 years. I cannot believe that these amounts will make any real difference to food production. Certainly farming could be more efficient and no doubt Mr Woollard has plenty of advice to give on that subject.

    The people of Cambridgeshire and indeed the east of England need more open spaces for recreation of all sorts. The National Trust has been and will continue to be an organisation, supported by hundreds of thousands, making sure that some at least of the countryside will be protected for the use of all of us.

    Frank Bowles
    Lynn Road
    Ely

    ReplyDelete
  106. From the Ely Standard (3/9/2009):

    Letters

    Farmland needs to be saved

    I'd like to lend my support to Geoffrey Woollard's campaign against the Wicken Vision. The Wicken Vision isn't the only flooding of agricultural land taking place. The Great Fen project near Peterborough, Wallesea Island and the many "managed retreats" around our coast add up to thousands of hectares of land.

    I met an Afghan refugee who cried when he saw our fabulous farmland set-aside, land that would have fed his entire starving village. Why isn't Oxfam and Save The Children campaigning on this?

    Peter Dawe
    Stuntney
    Ely

    ReplyDelete
  107. From the Cambridge News (3/9/2009):

    Letters

    Cut population

    While I would be quite happy to see an extension of Wicken Fen, I acknowledge the difference of opinion on the subject.

    However, the loss of a few acres of arable land is peripheral unless conjoined with a demand for a one child per family law - something which is already long overdue.

    Aircraft and vehicle emissions are nothing more than cosmetic unless something positive is done about human over-breeding.

    More people mean more manufactured goods (consumerism) as well as food and fresh water. There will also be a demand for more animals to eat, therefore producing more of the much ignored methane. Rotting household waste ditto.

    More demand for dwindling oil and gas supplies. Have we not been virtually promised power cuts in the not too distant future?

    Not to mention a lack of landfill sites. Incinerators produce toxic fumes.

    Science may come up with an answer to some things but not to the rigorous expansion of the human race. We humans have destroyed so much yet have no divine rights. We owe the other creatures of the world a lot, it is their planet also.

    I care little about the loss of farmland at Wicken as it will not make an iota of difference to the wellbeing of the human race. For we are witnessing the introduction to a catastrophe which will affect humans more than any other creature.

    Neither wind farms nor a few acres of ground is the answer. That can only come from a reduction of the human population.

    Paul Hayhoe
    Colville Road
    Cherry Hinton

    ReplyDelete
  108. From the Cambridge News (5/9/2009):

    Letters

    Too many folk

    In his attempt to become famous for something and in the midst of a country governed by dullards and mediocrities, it would be preferable if Mr Juniper (Letters, August 31st) paid more attention to the control of inward migration and over procreation of the human race.

    Turning good arable land into a swamp for the creation of weeds, insects, fungi and a few amphibians is a very poor substitute.

    Alan Shepherd
    Beechwood Avenue
    Bottisham

    ReplyDelete
  109. From the Cambridge News (5/9/2009):

    Letters

    I see Tony Juniper, the Cambridge "Green man", is wrong again. Far from the National Trust's so-called "Wicken Vision" involving 1,300 acres, the Trust's own website states that the scheme is to cover "around 56 square kilometres" (why can't these people talk about acres as our Cambridgeshire country folk still do?) which, by my on-line calculator, is 13,837 acres - more or less. So Mr Juniper is not only wrong: he's at least 1,000 per cent wrong.

    Being wrong is not a crime, however. Some of us are wrong sometimes.

    But, in this case, we are talking about a very substantial area of the finest food-producing Cambridgeshire Fen land that the Trust's "Vision" envisages becoming a waterlogged jungle of brambles, elder bushes, ragwort, stinging nettles and thistles, and it's already happening within a mile or so of my home. It is both wrong and a moral crime for this to be permitted.

    I am now looking to the present Defra Secretary Hilary Benn, following his "conversion" to British food production on the July 9 - "I want British farmers to produce as much food as possible" - to put a stop to it or for his possible Conservative successor to show his intention of doing so. We can't wait much longer.

    Geoffrey Woollard
    Near Upware
    Ely

    ReplyDelete
  110. From the Burwell Bulletin (5/9/2009):

    Letters

    Fen farmland not as productive as we are led to believe

    I was surprised to see an article in The Bulletin (edition 18) with the title "support grows for save our fens on-line petition". This was based on some 350 people having signed the petition over the several months it has been in place. Last year the sponsor of the petition, Mr. Woollard, wrote a letter criticising the National Trust's consultation process. This was based on the fact that although a large number of survey forms had been sent out, but as is usual with such surveys, only about 550 were returned. Of these about 500 were in favour of the Vision.

    Mr. Woollard was dismissive of this number and yet now argues that 350 people opposed is so significant that it warrants a newspaper article. Considering how long the petition has been in place this is a remarkably low response for a large populous area that would have an interest and tends to indicate no great groundswell against the vision.

    This week (edition 20) the bulletin published a letter from Mr. Woollard in which he makes the remarkable claim that the land being considered as a part of the vision is "the finest food-growing farm land in the world". I would be fascinated to see the evidence for this claim. Whatever the history of productivity is, it is a fact that the peat upon which the land relies is being rapidly depleted. When peat is dried and ploughed the exposure to oxidation results in a loss of nutrients as, of course, does the subsequent growth of the crops. In addition, the dry peat blows off the land to be lost for ever. These processes have continued for decades or centuries with no new peat being created. I have heard some estimates that the peat may only have 20 years life left.

    However, if his claim is true then presumably farmers will neither donate their land to the National Trust nor sell it at reasonable costs and the vision will not happen as there is no provision for compulsory purchase.

    The fact that farmers are already willing to sell, coupled with the fact that some of the land has already been taken out of food production by farmers tends to indicate that it is not as productive and therefore profitable as Mr. Woollard indicated. Indeed, in an earlier letter he admitted that he had offered to sell his own land to the Trust.

    Peter Green, Burwell

    ReplyDelete
  111. From the Burwell Bulletin (5/9/2009):

    Letters

    Waste not, want not on Wicken Fen

    Waste is a word that haunts me, particularly at this time of the year. My dear old grandma lived by 'waste not, want not' soaked crusts in her tea, swept the last crumbs off the table into her mouth, expected all plates to be cleared and reminded us boys to leave the ripe-looking fruit on the trees while there were windfalls to eat on the ground. In that environment there were horses, pigs and chickens to clear up the windfalls, but today the waste is still inexcusable.

    Today I see apple trees shedding their harvest that is left to rot, wild mirabelles, the most delicious of plums, left scattered over pavements and grass, their uses unidentified. Meanwhile the supermarkets ignore the seasonal gifts and sell at high prices lesser fruit than home-grown. And yes, I feel the same when I see onions and potatoes left on the land after the mechanized harvesting while feeling the farmers would welcome gatherers sooner than ploughing them in. Knowing that millions would welcome what we discard, I see the increasing need to grow more fruit on our own rich land, to discard set-aside and to make full use while we can of our own rich fenland, Britain's breadbasket.

    My first genuine Saturday job as a schoolboy was to dig the corners of my grandad's fields for the drilling, not an inch to be wasted. Yet by cold contrast we have this threat placed before us to discard hundreds of acres of rich fen land that can grow food like no other soil, this for a vague leisure diversion where there is no experience to bring it about, is hostile to the drainage system in place and would repel sooner than engage human visitors and would do nothing for wildlife. This is the 'Wicken Vision'.

    It cannot happen, surely. The disruption involved would be intolerable.

    Anthony Day, Wicken

    ReplyDelete
  112. From the Ely Standard (10/9/2009):

    Letters

    Vision is a threat to our Fens

    I thank Peter Dawe, for his supportive letter, and Frank Bowles, for his critical letter, both on the vexed subject of the National Trust's Wicken Vision. They are keeping a much-needed debate going and informing the readers of your excellent paper as to the cons and pros of what I believe to be a silly scheme.

    Mr Dawe is rightly worried about losing good agricultural land and I know that he is also mindful of climate change and rising sea levels. His ambitious plan for a tidal barrier across the Wash has considerable merit.

    Mr Bowles seems to believe that our food supply problems can be solved by us all being less obese. Well, if our food supply problems get much worse and our population grows much more above the latest count of 61 millions, then we may have no choice, but to become less obese. We weren't very obese as a people when there was food rationing in the 1940s and 1950s.

    Yes, we should waste less; yes, we should be less obese; but, yes, we should grow more of our food here at home and I repeat: Hilary Benn is right in calling for this. I only hope that the Secretary of State takes action to save our Fens.

    Geoffrey Woollard
    River Bank
    Upware

    ReplyDelete
  113. From the Cambridge News (10/9/2009):

    Letters

    Paul Hayhoe's arguments regarding the National Trust's so-called 'Wicken Vision' are 'interesting', to say the least.

    He says he cares little about the loss of farmland involved in what I believe to be a silly scheme and he also appears to call for a reduction in our population.

    I have a feeling that population reduction policies will find little support among electors. Although we now have a population of 61 millions, I really can't see much likelihood of anybody volunteering to be 'reduced'.

    In the absence of effective policies to reduce the population, it makes more sense for us to use to the fullest extent the very best of our natural resources, the food-growing Fenlands.

    In the interests of ourselves and of the peoples of the rest of the world, we should grow more of our food here at home and I repeat: Hilary Benn is right in calling for this.

    Geoffrey Woollard
    River Bank
    Nr Upware
    Ely

    ReplyDelete
  114. From the Ely Weekly News (10/9/2009):

    Site visit to help rule on fen work

    By Jordan Day

    (Photo)

    Opposed to the 'vision': Geoffrey Woollard has welcomed the deferral on a dcision.

    Controversial plans to build a cycle track, bridge and wetland habitats as part of the ambitious Wicken Fen Vision have been deferred.

    Planning chiefs have postponed making a decision on the National Trust's proposals until a thorough site visit has been conducted. East Cambridgeshire District Council's planning committee said it wanted to assess the impact the work would have on the area before making a decision.

    The proposals could see further work carried out as part of the National Trust's vision, which aims to create a massive nature reserve and cycle route near Ely.

    The plans put before the committee focus on Reach lode in Swaffham Prior and involve the construction of a cycle track from High Bridge to Straight Drove.

    There are also plans to build a three-metre wide bridge for public access across Reach Lode, including embankments, which has created uproar among nearby residents.

    The plans also include creating two wetland habitat areas and temporary buildings to aid with the construction of the bridge and other work.

    The scheme is part of a £2million project to transform 22 square miles of former wetlands between Cambridge and Soham into a haven for wildlife, local people and visitors.

    Many landowners criticise the revamp of such prime farmland into a "jungle", including resident Geoffrey Woollard, who is spear-heading a campaign against the project.

    Speaking after the planning meeting, Mr Woollard said: "I think this deferral is good news and shows the committee does have concerns.

    "I regard the proposed new bridge as an obtrusive and unneeded excrescence in these otherwise attractive Fens."

    But the district council's head of planning and sustainable development, Giles Hughes, said the deferral did not necessarily mean the plans would be refused.

    Mr Hughes said: "People should not read into this deferral. It is not a decision and does not mean the plans have, or will be refused.

    "Members want to go on a site visit so they can look at the impact the bridge and other proposed works could have on the area.

    "I must also point out that we are looking at these plans as a specific application and not at the Wicken Fen Vision as a whole."

    A decision on the plans, which are recommended for approval, will be made at a later date.

    ReplyDelete
  115. From the Ely Weekly News (10/9/2009):

    Letters

    Crusade brings shame on lobby

    Sir, Mr Woollard does himself no credit in his latest tirade against Wicken Fen and the National Trust (Not a vision of fen tranquility - Letters, September 3).

    To motivate and interest children in the environment and the living world around them you need to preface organised "hands on" investigation with exciting and attention-grabbing titles.

    I am sure Mr Woollard knows this as well as I do.

    Shame on him that he should stoop to such blatant misinterpretation in his crusade against the Wicken Fen Project.

    Bill Morris
    Lawn Lane
    Little Downham

    ReplyDelete
  116. From the Ely Weekly News (10/9/2009):

    Letters

    We don't want this Fen 'vision'

    Sir, It's a wonderful walk the year through and I've done it many times in company and alone and never more satisfying than on such an August day of sunshine and soft, still clouds, the fen perspective glorious to the eyes and soul.

    On one side a vast patchwork of flat fields, green to gold stretching to the blue high ground, a herd of cattle grazing serenely from this vantage height of the flood bank from Upware towards Cambridge; on the other side the broad lush green washland for grazing, the catchwater in season, a haven for wildlife undisturbed by humans, a man-made sanctuary serving all, becalming and wondrously beautiful. Who could want hills!

    And who could want disruption here, into this great resource of food, calm and peace? Who could lend their names to a scheme to disrupt this choice environment by churning it into a morass for decades ahead, pollution from machines and dead water a certainty, the aim so vague that it stinks?

    And, oh dear, my village has been associated with it. They dare to call it "Wicken Vision". Well, it doesn't come from the people I know here.

    Anthony Day
    Pond Green
    Wicken

    ReplyDelete
  117. From the Cambridge News (11/9/2009):

    Letters

    Prime land

    In order to judge the impact of the Wicken Fen Vision on agriculture and food production, we need to qualify Tony Juniper's statement (Letters, August 29) that "in England there are over 22 million acres of farmland".

    The national agricultural statistics for 2008 show that only about half of this is in arable cultivation; the other half is permanent grassland, rough grazing or moorland which bears no comparison with the land in question.

    The Ministry of Agriculture land quality surveys in the Wicken Fen area, carried out in the late 1960s and early 1970s as part of a national survey, showed that the land was predominantly of very high quality (Grade 1), capable of producing high yields of a wide range of arable and horticultural crops.

    Nationally, less than 3 per cent of agricultural land is in this category and a high proportion of it occurs in eastern England. Some of this land will have reduced in quality over the years due to losses of organic matter as a result of cultivation and climate change, but it will still be among the most productive and versatile land in the country.

    When gauging the potential impact of wetland creation on this scale on our food security, we should do so on the basis of a proper appreciation of the impact on our land resource, not simplistic and potentially misleading use of a national statistic.

    Alan Hooper
    The Lane
    Hauxton

    ReplyDelete
  118. I have sent out a 'progress report' to the people on my 'SaveOurFens' mailing list, as follows:

    (From Geoffrey Woollard, Chapel Farm, River Bank, Nr. Upware, Ely, Cambridgeshire. CB7 5YJ. Telephone 01223 - 861823).

    Some 'killer facts' and 'we need a full public inquiry'!

    The 'SaveOurFens' campaign has had a busy couple of weeks. The public debate continues apace and a letter from Mr Alan Hooper of Hauxton, Cambridgeshire, in today's Cambridge News provided what I can only call 'killer facts.' Mr Hooper knows what he is talking about and I have thanked him personally by telephone. His letter, headed 'Prime Land,' may be viewed at -

    http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_letters/displayarticle.asp?id=448181

    In addition and in the context of the National Trust's proposal for a massive and obtrusive new bridge over Reach Lode, I have sent the following letter to the Cambridge News and to its sister newspapers:

    "Dear Editor,

    Well done all of the members of East Cambridgeshire District Council Planning Committee for taking seriously local concerns regarding the National Trust's proposal for a new and enormous bridge over Reach Lode. Contrary to what the Trust is saying, there is no need for this monstrosity in an otherwise beautiful Fen landscape.

    But Mr Giles Hughes, the District Council's Head of Planning and Sustainable Development, is reported to have said:

    "I must also point out that we are looking at these [Reach Lode bridge] plans as a specific application and not at the Wicken Fen Vision as a whole."

    I have no criticism of Mr Hughes but that, actually, is the nub of the problem.

    Many people in and close by the ancient Fen-edge settlements of Wicken, Upware, Burwell, Reach, Swaffham Prior, Swaffham Bulbeck, Lode & Longmeadow, Bottisham, Stow cum Quy, Fen Ditton, Horningsea and Waterbeach have expressed opposition to the National Trust's stupid plans to turn thousand of acres of fine food-producing Fen land into a waterlogged jungle of brambles, elder bushes, ragwort, stinging nettles and thistles, but, so far as I am aware, the so-called 'Wicken Vision' which the Trust's own website states is to cover "around 56 square kilometres" (by my on-line calculator 13,837 acres) has never been the subject of a formal planning application or a public inquiry as a whole. Component parts, yes, but never all of it. And it's a scheme that is estimated to cost over £100 millions! [not £2 millions as was reported].

    We need a formal planning application or, better still, a full public inquiry, and we need it now before the Fens are ruined.

    Yours sincerely

    Geoffrey Woollard."

    Note: Attached is a picture taken today of Maris Peer potatoes in full flower and flourishing in Swaffham Prior Fen. For a piece on Maris Peer potatoes go to -

    http://www.britishpotatoes.co.uk/maris-peer/

    Thanks for your continuing and encouraging support!

    Geoffrey Woollard.
    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveOurFens/
    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/NoToHareCoursing/

    ReplyDelete
  119. Message received 12/9/2009:

    Hi GW!!!!

    I had to fight tooth and nail to get planning permission for my modest little stable block. It was denied at first because – and I quote - “It would be detrimental to the character of the countryside”.

    Thus, why should the NT not have had to obtain planning permission for this vast change of the character of the countryside? H*****

    ReplyDelete
  120. Message received 12/9/2009:

    Dear Mr Woollard

    Many thanks for your communication and for drawing people's attention to the very sensible letter from Alan Hooper in this evening's Cambridge News about the true value of the agricultural land near to Wicken Fen. .

    I thought you might like to see a copy of the letter I wrote recently to the head of the National Trust, Sir Simon Jenkins, about their plans for Wicken Fen. I haven't had a reply but if I do hear anything I will let you know.

    Thank you again for all you are doing to keep this very worrying matter in the public eye. I hope the National Trust will come to their senses and think again but I am not sure if they will.

    Yours sincerely

    P**** J******

    ReplyDelete
  121. Message received 12/9/2009:

    Keep up the fight for sense in the fens..

    M***

    ReplyDelete
  122. From the Cambridge News (12/9/2009):

    Letters

    Awful vision

    In response to the "Cut population" letter by Paul Hayhoe, he quotes: "I care little about the loss of farmland at Wicken ..." - is that not Nimbyism!

    It makes a lot of difference to local people, the local farmers who have worked the land for years by old methods. It is a haven for wildlife and walkers with well-controlled dogs and children.

    The "Vision" in my opinion is short-sighted and will change the whole character of the area.

    Leave Lode, Longmeadow and Wicken and the old fen alone!

    Name and address supplied.

    ReplyDelete
  123. From the Cambridge News (12/9/2009):

    Letters

    Leave it be

    Re the proposed Wicken Fen regeneration - Wicken Fen is beautiful as it is; why turn it once more into a malaria-prone place?

    This seems scandalous to me.

    Anne Bromley
    Riverside Court
    Cambridge

    ReplyDelete
  124. Message received 12/9/2009:

    GREAT STUFF GEOFFREY!!

    Love the spud picture too. Maybe not as a good as a Constable landscape, but 10 out of 10 for effort, imagination and composition!!

    Much love

    D**

    ReplyDelete
  125. Message received 12/9/2009:

    Dear Geoffrey,

    Well done and thank you.

    They are not thinking this through in an intelligent, practical - and economic way - but the that's the National Trust for you.

    Love to you both,

    J****

    ReplyDelete
  126. Message received 14/9/2009:

    Dear Geoffrey,

    With a scheme of this size there most certainly should be a public inquiry.

    I feel sure the idea will gather support even from our MP's

    Kind regards,

    A***

    ReplyDelete
  127. From the Cambridge News (14/9/2009):

    Letters

    Land in danger

    The East of England Regional Assembly is seeking views on how many more homes are needed.

    I am seriously concerned with problems relating to food supplies and the supply of water.

    The populations of the world, including the UK, are increasing.

    There is a need for an increase in food production and in the supply of water.

    With climate change, some lowlying land will flood due to sea levels rising as a result of ice melting. Other areas, due to drought and high temperatures, will increase the area of desert and affect the growth of crops.

    In the UK we can expect lowlying areas to flood and some areas being lost to food production due to drought.

    When anyone is proposing to use land in food production for some non-food use, they should be required to state how the loss of food production is to be replaced and how the extra water required can be assured for the life of the proposed buildings.

    Mr J.M. Milner
    Gough Way
    Cambridge

    ReplyDelete
  128. From the Cambridge News (14/9/2009):

    Letters

    My sources

    The Green Party's Tony Juniper (September 4) asks where I get my information from.

    The answer is simple: we are now importing 37 per cent of our food and must become more selfsufficient, information source - a Government report featured in the Cambridge News; deliberate flooding of fertile arable fenland, information source - various, including letters to the News from Mr Juniper; humans need to eat vegetables and fruit, information source - the basic survival guide; Earth has existed for an estimated 4.5 billion years and the Ice Age began to decline some 13,000 years ago, information source - any public library; 'global warming' taxes, information source - the reintroduction of the 'automatic fuel price escalator' for example; job creation (courtesy of the council tax payer), information source - local authority appointments of 'climate change officers', again, for example.

    I have duly noted that Martin Rees does not believe that the behavioural patterns of the sun have been wholly responsible for climate change, but that does not invalidate the points I have made, and I suggest that no conclusions can be made from any survey that has observed a brief 50-year period.

    A. Seymour
    Morley Drive
    Ely

    ReplyDelete
  129. I had an interesting hour and a half yesterday afternoon in the company of a young Oxford undergraduate who is doing a dissertation on the National Trust's so-called 'Wicken Vision.' It was very clear that his preliminary study work had been extremely thorough and he is now carrying out a series of interviews with those who have local knowledge and/or opinions. I heard that he had already questioned National Trust staff including Mr Chris Soans, who had been helpful and who is still based at Wicken, and Mr Adrian Colston, who is credited (by himself, at least) with having originally envisaged and invented the 'Wicken Vision.' Mr Colston has long since departed, of course, having originated so much harm, hassle and hurt to us locals, and I understand that he is now 'on Dartmoor.' Lucky Mr Colston!

    ReplyDelete
  130. From the Cambridge News (16/9/2009):

    Letters

    Inquiry needed

    Giles Hughes, of East Cambridgeshire District Council, is reported to have said they are looking at plans for Reach Lode bridge "as a specific application and not at the Wicken Fen Vision as a whole".

    I have no criticism of Mr Hughes but that, actually, is the nub of the problem.

    Many people in and close by the ancient fen-edge settlements of Wicken, Upware, Burwell, Reach, Swaffham Prior, Swaffham Bulbeck, Lode & Longmeadow, Bottisham, Stow-cum-Quy, Fen Ditton, Horningsea and Waterbeach have expressed opposition to the National Trust's stupid plans to turn thousands of acres of fine food-producing fenland into a waterlogged jungle of brambles, elder bushes, ragwort, stinging nettles and thistles, but, so far as I am aware, the so-called Wicken Vision which the trust's own website states is to cover "around 56 square kilometres" (13,837 acres) has never been the subject of a formal planning application or a public inquiry as a whole. And it's a scheme that is estimated to cost over £100 million!

    We need a formal planning application or a full public inquiry and we need it now before the Fens are ruined.

    Geoffrey Woollard.
    Chapel Farm
    Near Upware
    Ely

    ReplyDelete
  131. Message received 16/9/2009:

    Dear Geoffrey,

    Your letter in today's Cambridge News reads well. I think the subject to go for now is the public inquiry. Too many people let these monstrous plans 'wash over their heads' without taking in what is really happening. This would give much more publicity than at present.

    Kind regards,

    A***

    ReplyDelete
  132. I said on Tuesday that I had had an interesting hour and a half during Monday afternoon in the company of a young Oxford undergraduate who is doing a dissertation on the National Trust's so-called 'Wicken Vision.' As part of my assistance to him, I agreed to his request to use a disposable camera that he provided in order to photograph those aspects of our Fens that I wished to draw further to his attention. As it is 'partly sunny' here today, I broke off from some other work and did the job this morning.

    I took 'snaps' of our River Cam which, at this time of the year, is probably at its most beautiful, winding its reed-edged and willowed way from beyond Cambridge to its junction with the Great Ouse. I thought of the film, "A River Runs Through It" and, though Cambridgeshire ain't Montana, our river has something very special about it and I am proud of it. It is a wonderful haven for all sorts of wildlife.

    I next photographed 'The Little Chapel in The Fen' because it features prominently in both my thinking and the 'SaveOurFens' campaign. As a Trustee of the Chapel I have a duty to ensure that it is not threatened in any manner nor undermined by water from flooding of the Fens. This historic building, also, is surrounded by havens of wildlife, mostly man-made.

    Having 'snapped' some nice views of Reach Lode and a few of the boats thereon from the Upware end, I then went a mile or so up 'our road' (Great Drove) towards Reach village and got what I hope will be some useful shots of fine fields of carrots, parsnips, potatoes (the Maris Peer ones are especially splendid now that they are in full flower and obviously flourishing), leeks, maize (corn), sugar beet, etc.

    Though the grain crops have been successfully harvested and the stubbles are bare or awaiting more plantings, it was so clear yet again that we have in this area a huge variety of agricultural cropping set alongside the drainage ditches and the Cambridgeshire Lodes (canals carrying 'high land' water across the Fens to the Cam and dating back to Roman times) and other man-made wildlife havens - field corners, plantations of mixed trees and extra-wide field and roadside verges dating from when the Droves were laid out in the early 1800s - that are already wonderful for our huge variety of wildlife.

    Neither we nor our wildlife need the National Trust's so-called 'Wicken Vision' which will, if implemented, create an unkempt and water-logged jungle of brambles, elder bushes, ragwort, stinging nettles and thistles where mosquitoes will abound and where increased numbers of visitors will scare off the much-loved wildlife. What we do need as a nation of over sixty-one million people (and those are the ones who have permitted themselves to be counted) and as a world with a population racing towards nine billions and beyond, is to keep the best food-producing land in the kingdom. Here, in the Cambridgeshire Fens, we have just that and it must not be abused nor lost.

    Lastly, I obtained pictures of land that the National Trust has taken over and what did the camera's eye see? Why, the said jungle of brambles, elder bushes, ragwort, stinging nettles and thistles. To someone who loves the Fens for their beautiful skyscapes, their productivity and their wildlife, this was and is an obscenity. We must stop it.

    There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the so-called 'Wicken Vision.' If it is 'successful' by the National Trust's standards, it will draw thousands more visitors who will frighten off the wildlife. If it is not 'successful' and few additional visitors come, then what is the point of the huge loss of food production and the expending of over £100 millions?

    ReplyDelete
  133. From the Ely Standard (17/9/2009):

    Letters

    Dont Ruin Fens - Open An Enquiry

    Well done all of the members of East Cambridgeshire District Council Planning Committee for taking seriously local concerns regarding the National Trust's proposal for a new and enormous bridge over Reach Lode. Contrary to what the Trust is saying, there is no need for this monstrosity in an otherwise beautiful Fen landscape.

    But I understand that Giles Hughes, the district council's head of planning and sustainable development said the council were not looking at the Wicken Fen Vision as a whole.

    I have no criticism of Mr Hughes but that, actually, is the nub of the problem.

    Many people in and close by the ancient Fen-edge settlements of Wicken, Upware, Burwell, Reach, Swaffham Prior, Swaffham Bulbeck, Lode & Longmeadow, Bottisham, Stow cum Quy, Fen Ditton, Horningsea and Waterbeach have expressed opposition to the National Trust's plans to turn thousand of acres of fine food-producing Fen land into a waterlogged jungle of brambles, elder bushes, ragwort, stinging nettles and thistles, but, so far as I am aware, the so-called 'Wicken Vision' which the Trust's own website states is to cover "around 56 square kilometres" (by my on-line calculator 13,837 acres) has never been the subject of a formal planning application or a public inquiry as a whole. Component parts, yes, but never all of it. And it's a scheme that is estimated to cost over £100 millions! [not £2 millions as was reported].

    We need a formal planning application or, better still, a full public inquiry, and we need it now before the Fens are ruined.

    Geoffrey Woollard
    River Bank
    Upware

    ReplyDelete
  134. From the Ely Weekly News:

    Letters

    Full inquiry on vision for fens

    Sir, In your article, ‘Site visit to help rule on fen work’ (Weekly News – September 10), Giles Hughes, of East Cambridgeshire District Council, is reported to have said: "I must also point out that we are looking at these [Reach Lode bridge] plans as a specific application and not at the Wicken Fen Vision as a whole."

    I have no criticism of Mr Hughes but that, actually, is the nub of the problem.

    Many people in and close by the ancient Fen-edge settlements of Wicken, Upware, Burwell, Reach, Swaffham Prior, Swaffham Bulbeck, Lode & Longmeadow, Bottisham, Stow cum Quy, Fen Ditton, Horningsea and Waterbeach have expressed opposition to the National Trust's stupid plans to turn thousand of acres of fine food-producing Fen land into a waterlogged jungle of brambles, elder bushes, ragwort, stinging nettles and thistles, but, so far as I am aware, the so-called Wicken Vision - which the Trust's own website states is to cover "around 56 square kilometres" (by my on-line calculator 13,837 acres) - has never been the subject of a formal planning application or a public inquiry as a whole. Component parts, yes, but never all of it. And it's a scheme that is estimated to cost over £100 million!

    We need a formal planning application or, better still, a full public inquiry, and we need it now before the Fens are ruined.

    Yours sincerely

    Geoffrey Woollard
    Chapel Farm
    Upware

    ReplyDelete
  135. From the Ely Weekly News:

    Letters

    Look at facts on food production

    Sir, In order to judge the impact of the Wicken Fen Vision on agriculture and food production, we need to qualify Tony Juniper's statement (Letters, August 29) that "in England there are over 22 million acres of farmland".

    The national agricultural statistics for 2008 show that only about half of this is in arable cultivation; the other half is permanent grassland, rough grazing or moorland which bears no comparison with the land in question.

    The Ministry of Agriculture land quality surveys in the Wicken Fen area, carried out in the late 1960s and early 1970s as part of a national survey, showed that the land was predominantly of very high quality (Grade 1), capable of producing high yields of a wide range of arable and horticultural crops.

    Nationally, less than 3 per cent of agricultural land is in this category and a high proportion of it occurs in eastern England. Some of this land will have reduced in quality over the years due to losses of organic matter as a result of cultivation and climate change, but it will still be among the most productive and versatile land in the country.

    When gauging the potential impact of wetland creation on this scale on our food security, we should do so on the basis of a proper appreciation of the impact on our land resource, not simplistic and potentially misleading use of a national statistic.

    Alan Hooper
    The Lane
    Hauxton

    ReplyDelete
  136. Message received 19/9/2009:

    I think your latest letter would be impossible for any any sane person to argue against. Your campaign surely cannot fail. But we do live in a mad world.

    Best wishes,

    John W.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Geoffrey,

    What an excellent letter.

    I think you are winning the argument.

    I was speaking to Michael Church, Secretary of Haddenham Drainage Board, at the Steam Rally last weekend and he was explaining to me how all of these schemes, Wicken Fen vision, the Great Fen project, Lakenheath Fen and now the RSPB Ouse Washes sanctuary replacement, are not being honest about their long term impacts on drainage. Firstly the wetting up process will cause problems for farms outside the project but within the catchment as the average level water table rises and secondly, they all claim that the land can be returned to farming in an emergency but neglect to say that the souring and acidification of the land takes years, probably tens of years to clear and so the land would only be fit for rough grazing for a very long time if it ever was returned to farming. I just wondered if it might be worth studying some contour maps to determine the full potential impact on food production of the 'vision' and the other projects.

    Regards,

    A***

    ReplyDelete
  138. From the Cambridge News (19/9/2009):

    Letters

    Don't alter fen

    Re: The Wicken Fen clearances

    During the 18th century, whole communities in Scotland were summarily evicted from their dwellings by absentee landlords. They suffered great hardships. Huge flocks of sheep were installed and vast fortunes were made during the booming wool trade at that time. A certain amount of rancour still exists among families who are direct descendants of the victims. Those events are still referred to as "The Clearances".

    Now what is the National Trust up to? Is it their intention to acquire vast stretches of land in our fens? Is their intention to take out of production vast acres of prime fertile agricultural land? As a consequence of this will many farmsteads and homes become untenable and their occupants forced to lose their livelihoods? Does the National Trust intend to undo a lot of the work carried out over the centuries by the Romans, the Dutch and more recently the dear old War Ag (War Agricultural Executive Committee)? Apart from the National Trust and the mosquitoes, who will benefit?

    As a member of a family which has lived, farmed, taught, worked and played in the area for over a century, I believe I have a right to an opinion. I prefer the status quo.

    A third of a million for a bridge over our little Swaffham Lode! What price the Bridge of Reeds? I suggest they get a quote from Isambard Kingdom Brunel!

    Keith Pratt
    Swaffham Road
    Lode

    ReplyDelete
  139. From the Cambridge News (26/9/2009):

    Letters

    Try it in city

    Green Tony Juniper has clearly adopted the role of an ecological expert in his quest to flood thousands of acres of fertile fenland.

    However, I am increasingly unimpressed with the word "expert", as there is a general assumption we should blithely accept all of their utterances but, after all, meteorological experts consistently offer us erroneous weather reports.

    Mr Juniper's misleading use of statistics has already been exposed by Alan Hooper (Letters, September 11), but I believe there may be a solution for Mr Juniper. Perhaps he should campaign closer to his own backyard to create his vision. Midsummer and Stourbridge commons appear to be ideal spots and the benefits would be threefold.

    Farmers would continue to cultivate vegetables in the Fens, cattle grazing would be eliminated from common land, alleviating a cause of global warming (allegedly) and many more members of the public would be able to view Mr Juniper's utopia of wetlands attracting insects and weeds, totally free of charge.

    Alan Seymour
    Morley Drive
    Ely

    ReplyDelete
  140. Another of my most helpful friends has written an excellent letter to Hilary Benn, the DEFRA Secretary:

    Dear Mr Benn

    I was heartened by your recent comments concerning the need to increase UK food production. It seems that at long last the Labour Administration has realised that it cannot rely on the current high levels of imports to secure our food safety, in terms of quantity, quality and bio security.

    In the light of these comments I am, however, puzzled by your government's support for the National Trust's ill conceived "Wicken Vision" project, which seem more aligned to the extreme views of the Green Party and Tony Juniper than to moderate Labour policy.

    If you study the implications of this "Vision" you will realise that as it proceeds it will lead to the dereliction of several thousand acres of Cambridgeshire fenland. Land which is the most fertile and productive arable land in the UK and probably in the entire world.

    Proponents of the scheme maintain that it will increase the natural habitat and consequently wildlife population of the area. In reality it will reduce rich arable fenland to bog and marsh infested with nettles, brambles, elder and mosquitoes.

    If the project is successful in the eyes of the National Trust, it will result in the construction of new infrastructure to cope with the increase in visitor numbers. The N.T. already has a planning application on the table for a monstrous new bridge, which will no doubt be followed by car parks, interpretation centre, metalled roads and board walks.

    This development coupled with the increase in visitor traffic will disrupt and inhibit any expected increases in the wild life of the area.

    Currently, Mr Benn, this area is farmed to a very high standard, producing cereals, potatoes and vegetable crops. It is a quiet area with few visitors to disrupt the many and varied species of indigenous flora and fauna.

    Perhaps the National Trust should be reminded of its own Mission Statement which is to "Protect Everything for All", and celebrate the achievements of Cornelius Vermuyden whose work gave us this productive farmland which is highly valued by those who farm and understand the land.

    I urge you, Mr Benn, to intervene to stop the National Trust from acting beyond its remit in this way. Halt this wanton destruction of our wonderful countryside, and permanent loss of this vast area of farmland.

    Should you require endorsement of the views expressed in this letter, you need only to consult those currently living and working in the area whose lives and livelihoods will be blighted by this vandalism.

    Yours sincerely

    Graham Smith

    ReplyDelete
  141. From the Cambridge News (3/10/2009):

    Letters

    Good for Benn

    I approve again of what Hilary Benn, the Defra secretary, said on Monday at the Labour Party Conference at Brighton.

    He repeated that he wants British farmers to produce more food. I agree.

    And they must be permitted to continue to grow more food in the huge Cambridgeshire Fens area that the National Trust wants to grab for its so-called "Wicken Vision", a nonsensical scheme if ever there was one.

    And, for good measure, Mr Benn pleased me again by reminding us all of what we are in for if we go for the Tory choice at the General Election - "a return to fox-hunting". This drew considerable applause from an appreciative audience at Brighton and, I would guess, many thousands more in Mr Benn's TV audience.

    I never thought I would say such a thing or write it, but here is my opinion of Mr Benn and his speech: "Well done, Hilary!"

    Geoffrey Woollard
    Chapel Farm
    Near Upware
    Ely

    ReplyDelete
  142. From the Burwell Bulletin (3/10/2009):

    Letters

    Response to earlier Fen letters

    I refer to an earlier Burwell Bulletin in which Peter Green 'had a go' at me - as he is entitled to do! I will ignore his derogatory comments about the productiveness or otherwise of our Fens. Suffice to say that, whilst I, too, find it incomprehensible that a small-scale landowner near Swaffham Prior should have let his land become a jungle like the National Trust's large holdings, I believe that most of your readers know that there is no more productive land in England than the Fens in Cambridgeshire.

    Also in response to Peter Green and lest there should be any misunderstanding as to my own Fen property position, I have a house and sixteen acres some of which are around 'The Little Chapel in The Fen.' About two years ago I offered to sell my house and land to the National Trust, my wife having had a hankering for living close to the Suffolk coast. Soon after, I realised that I was so angry with what the Trust was and is doing and that I was so apprehensive for the future of the Chapel which would be undermined by land being flooded or becoming water-logged that I told the Trust's officers that my offer was withdrawn.

    I also realised that I could not let my many friends down and I am now continuing to take the fight to the Trust, both locally and, possibly, nationally. Some of your readers will recognise a saying of Martin Luther (in an entirely different context) - "Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise."

    Geoffrey Woollard

    ReplyDelete
  143. From the Cambridge News (6/10/2009):

    D-Day for bridge

    Controversial plans for a new bridge will be reconsidered tomorrow.

    The bridge, across Reach Lode, at Swaffham Prior Fen, is part of the National Trust's plans to extend the Wicken Fen nature reserve, but has been branded an eyesore by objectors.

    East Cambs planning officers are recommending approval.

    ReplyDelete
  144. East Cambridgeshire District Council's Planning Committee met today. I have issued a press release which is self-explanatory:

    Reach Lode Bridge - First Round - David: Nil - Goliath: One!

    The Planning Committee of East Cambridgeshire District Council today approved by a majority recorded vote the National Trust's proposal for a massive new bridge over Reach Lode, put forward ostensibly for people who might want to make their way from Anglesey Abbey to Wicken Fen.

    The National Trust appears to have based its case upon the bizarre assumption that visitors to Anglesey Abbey, a National Trust property, are likely to desire to push on to Wicken Fen, another National Trust property, on foot, by bicycle, or on horseback. The new bridge is intended to respond to the assumed desire by helping to facilitate a 'through-route.'

    It is now evident that the planners were sweet-talked by the Trust and, with some dissent from local and other members of the Committee, the bridge plan - part of the Trust's so-called 'Wicken Vision' - is to go ahead.

    I described the decision as 'disappointing' and said that, after the first round of a David and Goliath fight, the score was 'David: Nil - Goliath: One.' 'There are many more rounds to come but, of course, the National Trust is extremely powerful and will attempt to bulldoze more of this scheme through against the declared wishes of local people.'

    I was permitted to have my say and my speech went as follows:

    ReplyDelete
  145. "Mr Chairman,

    My friend and my diligent District Councillor, Mr Allen Alderson, with whom I have discussed this matter on several occasions, will make the local case well. He knows that people in his ward - Reach, Swaffham Bulbeck and Swaffham Prior, as well as in Burwell - are incensed by this proposed bridge and he has told you and will tell you why. It is a grotesque proposition and entirely unsuitable for the fine Fen landscapes of Reach and Swaffham Prior Fens that are adorned by Reach Lode, probably Cambridgeshire's best such waterway.

    Cllr. Alderson will suggest an alternative route* for the people who are assumed by the National Trust to want to make their way from Anglesey Abbey to Wicken Fen on foot, by bicycle, or on horseback. The alternative route could be useful if we were to be convinced that there was a genuinely perceived need or if we were to be convinced that those people were anything other than a figment of the National Trust's fertile imagination.

    I was for years a member of this Council and of the County Council. At no time was I a member of a Planning Committee. Therefore, my approach to planning matters has always been that of a Parish Councillor, first for twenty years at Swaffham Bulbeck and, in more recent times, at Swaffham Prior.

    In all of those years, when faced with a planning application, I have looked initially to see if there was a perceived need, either on the part of the applicant or in the community. I have then looked at the acceptability or otherwise of the application especially with regard to location and overall design.

    In Swaffham Prior we have a perceived need for some additional 'social housing.' Therefore, in examining proposals that may involve an element of additional 'social housing,' I would move straight from the question of need to the questions of location and overall design. That is logical.

    But there might come a day when some well-meaning men and women were to put forward a plan to erect somewhere at Swaffham Prior a fifty-foot high statue of marvellous design to mark the life and achievements of Parish Councillor Mr Geoffrey Woollard.

    Then the people of Swaffham Prior would say straightway - and rightly - 'Nah!' - that there was and is no need, perceived or otherwise, for such a nonsense and that they would not go so far as to look at location and overall design. The plan would be thrown out neck and crop and without further ado. That is logical, too.

    Mr Chairman, we know that there is no proven need for this monstrous and nonsense bridge over Reach Lode. You and your colleagues should throw it out neck and crop and without further ado. That is also logical and you all know it."

    * In the event, Cllr. Alderson did make the local case well, but he was not permitted to describe the alternative route (which would have taken people via Upware). I regret this decision as, in my opinion, he was attempting to be constructive towards the Trust as well as helpful towards the people he represents.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Message received 7/10/2009:

    Dear Geoffrey,

    Disappointed. This is the National Trust taking over control of planning in the area. It is bad news for us.

    S** W***

    ReplyDelete
  147. Message received 8/10/2009:

    Dear Geoffrey,

    More about power and influence than commonsense. It's almost as if we are now dominated by lunatics right throughout the nation.

    Kind regards,

    A***

    ReplyDelete
  148. Message received 8/10/2009:

    David eventually defeated Goliath because Goliath was too big to miss!

    J****

    ReplyDelete
  149. Message received 11/10/2009:

    So James Paice is tipped for the Minister of Agriculture, while highly productive fen is turned into a wasteland under his nose, eh? The only thing that I can say is that all those wretched ponies are adding fertility to the soil ready for it to be returned to production in the future. A sort of modern Norfolk four crop rotation. There is a clause in their Vision that says the land can be returned to agricultural use if there is a future need. Bring it on!

    S*****

    ReplyDelete
  150. Letter written to The Times and the Daily Telegraph:

    Dear Sir,

    The picture of Polish Konik stallions fighting at Wicken in the Cambridgeshire Fens may have intrigued your readers.

    The Koniks were brought in by the National Trust and, along with Highland cattle from Scotland, are supposed to be helping to re-create the old Fens on thousands of acres of hitherto fine food-producing land.

    These 'native' breeds are frightening the lives out of the native Fen villagers and are regarded as a sick joke by food-producing farmers.

    Yours faithfully,

    Geoffrey Woollard.

    ReplyDelete
  151. From the Cambridge News (15/10/2009):

    Stallions spar in the fens

    It may look like the plains of America but incredibly this rare shot of two wild stallions sparring was snapped in the Cambridgeshire countryside.

    The two konik horses were spotted fighting on the wetlands of Wicken Fen just 10 miles away from Cambridge.

    The stallions reared up and boxed with their fore legs in a sight which has rarely been seen in Britain for 4,000 years, when the last herds of wild horses roamed these fields.

    The koniks, which share many characteristics of the now- extinct Tarpan, the original wild horse of Europe's forests, are one of the largest animals ever to be introduced in to the UK.

    They have been imported to help manage the 325-acre nature reserve.

    Carol Laidlow, conservation grazing warden at Wicken Fen, said: "It is a pretty amazing sight to see two stallions fighting like this in Britain and it gets the heart racing. Sometimes the stallions are just playing and enjoying a bit of rough and tumble, but other times it could be a bachelor stallion challenging the dominant stallion."

    ReplyDelete
  152. Letter to the Editor of the Cambridge News:

    Polish Konik horses in the Cambridgeshire Fens - a sick joke!

    Dear Editor,

    Geoff Robinson was extremely lucky to get close enough to photograph the wild Polish Konik stallions fighting at Wicken Fen. He was also fortunate that they went after one another and not him.

    Other visitors to the National Trust's extensive lands in the Fens should be very wary. The Trust itself advises that these animals should be observed 'from a respectful distance.' A single stallion, even from a tame breed, can be unpredictable. Several stallions, of a wild and untamed type, can be dangerous.

    Your readers may be wondering why we have wild horses in the Cambridgeshire Fens. The Koniks were brought in at great expense by the National Trust and, along with Highland cattle from Scotland, are supposed to be helping to re-create the old Fens on thousands of acres of hitherto fine food-producing land.

    These 'native' breeds are frightening the lives out of the native Fen villagers and are regarded as a sick joke by food-producing farmers.

    Yours sincerely,

    Geoffrey Woollard.

    ReplyDelete
  153. Message received 15/10/2009:

    It is a pity that one of the stallions did not kick him along with the NT off 'our' land and leave us alone to enjoy what we have and keep it as it is.

    S*****

    ReplyDelete
  154. Message received 15/10/2009:

    Keep it up Geoffrey.

    I love horses, but in the right place. These obviously are not.

    Best wishes with your campaign.

    M*****

    ReplyDelete
  155. Message received 15/10/2009:

    Dear Geoffrey,

    I also saw the article on the horses and you are certainly right, on another issue, regarding the infamous bridge over the Reach Lode.

    As you know I have lived in Lode and Longmeadow a long time so I know the area quite well, it occurred to me that this bridge which apparently is for people to walk from Anglesey Abbey to Wicken Fen and I assume to return to their transport at the abbey. At a guess I would say that the journey on foot is a good 8 to 10 mile hike over the current footpath system either way, to actually walk this both ways would take a reasonably fit person I'd say 5 to 6 hours at least, as Anglesey Abbey doesn't open until 10.30am usually and closes at 4.30pm most of the time it doesn't leave much time to enjoy Wicken Fen, or have a break along the way and return to the Abbey before closing time to collect their vehicles. Most people I would assume would drive to Wicken Fen anyway in order to have enough time to spend there taking in the scenery etc., or getting trampled by some mad horse or steer. Hence no real need fotr the bridge at all.

    Just my thoughts on what is becoming quite an issue.

    Regards

    G***** B****
    Longmeadow.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Message received 15/10/2009:

    Hi Geoffrey,

    Were there ever wild Polish horses in the Fens? I don't remember reading about them in any historical account of Fenland!!!!!

    I also thought that Highland cattle were built to withstand cold weather and poor grazing on hard land. Aren't they likely to be very uncomfortable during our hot dry summers on a diet of rich grass and on soft winter ground?

    Maybe the RSPCA should take a look??

    A

    ReplyDelete
  157. From the Ely Standard (15/10/2009):

    Bridge plan approved

    Plans for a new bridge over Reach Lode have been approved by councillors - despite calls from residents to scrap the project. Members of the district council's planning committee voted on Wednesday last week that the National Trust would be allowed to press ahead with plans for the 120ft bridge, which will link Anglesey Abbey to Wicken Fen. The plans include provision for two wetland areas and a new 2km cycle track, but the decision was greeted with concern by local residents and councillors who labelled the bridge "obtrusive" and "unacceptable".

    ReplyDelete
  158. From the Ely Standard (15/10/2009):

    Letters

    Who's thought of crops?

    I attended the Harvest Festival/Civic Service in Ely Cathedral on Sunday. The Bishop delivered an interesting address. Sticking with the Harvest theme, he spoke about farming and food production in this country.

    In transpires that next year, for the first time ever, we will not be self sufficient in the production of wheat. The reason he gave was that on top of what is required for food there is now the added pressure of crops that are needed for the production of bio-fuels. It appears that there is just enough land available in the right places to produce the increased tonnage required.

    I wonder how this fits in with two local schemes, which are presently being discussed. I refer to the expansion of Wicken Fen and the Ely Masterplan, both of which involved the removal of agricultural land from production, the former returning to its undrained state and the latter creating a Country Park. These would be good ideas if the space was available but unfortunately, on the authority of the Bishop, it is not.

    I do hope that all the civic dignitaries that were present took his word to heart.

    Tony Pearson
    Ely Road
    Prickwillow

    ReplyDelete
  159. Message received 16/10/2009:

    Hi Geoffrey

    I had no idea that these horses and cattle had been shipped into the Fens. The more I hear, the more I wonder if the National Trust has a conscience at all. Perhaps their next step will be to depopulate the Fens entirely, so they can recreate the Iron Age landscape. If you hear they are insisting on farmers planting Emma Wheat you’ll know what’s coming!!

    Much love,

    D**

    ReplyDelete
  160. From the Cambridge News (20/10/2009):

    Fan starts petition in support of fen project

    jordan.day@cambridge-news.co.uk

    A petition has been launched in support of the controversial Wicken Fen Vision.

    Ely resident Ben Gibbs has spearheaded an online campaign asking the Prime Minister to support the National Trust’s multi-million pound scheme.

    Already, more than 620 people have signed up.

    The 100-year vision is part of a £2 million project to transform former wetlands between Cambridge and Soham into a "green lung" for wildlife, local people and visitors.

    But the plans have been at the centre of controversy for years, with residents blasting the transformation of prime agricultural land into a "jungle".

    Geoffrey Woollard, who is against the ambitious project, launched the Save our Fens petition earlier this year in a bid to halt the vision in its tracks.

    But Mr Gibbs, of John Amner Close, said the response to his petition "clearly demonstrates the level of public support for the plans".

    He said: "This will create a much-needed habitat for many threatened species of wildlife, helping reinstate the peat soils and reducing carbon loss.

    "In addition, the new reserve will create much-needed recreational space for residents of a county that has significantly less accessible countryside than the national average.

    "The vision will provide a new amenity for visitors on foot, cycle and horseback, creating a network of footpaths and circular routes, and eventually providing a safe and virtually traffic-free route from Cambridge to Ely."

    A recent investigation carried out by the National Trust showed that nearly 36 million cubic metres of soil have been lost from the vision area over the last 200 years through extensive agricultural practices.

    Mr Gibbs said: "At the end of the day, we are talking about a plan to transform a relatively small area of land into a nature reserve with important habitats for endangered wildlife and much needed recreational facilities for residents and visitors.

    "The National Trust consultations indicated a high level of public support, as does the number of people who have signed up for my petition."

    Only last week, the News reported how planning chiefs had given the green light to the National Trust to build the latest phase of the vision’s "spine route".

    East Cambridgeshire District Council has approved plans to build a three-metre wide bridge over Reach Lode, as well as a cycle track from High Bridge to Straight Drove.

    Plans to build two wetland habitat areas were also approved.

    To sign Mr Gibbs’ petition, visit http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/wickenfenvision/

    ReplyDelete
  161. Well, I ain't frit of opposition!

    The Cambridge News is seeking comments on the above and some of them follow:

    Come to your senses, Cambridgeshire, East Anglia and England!
    Posted By: Geoffrey Woollard on 20-Oct-2009
    I see that the National Trust has mobilised its people in support of the so-called 'Wicken Vision,' that the Trust is using Mr Ben Gibbs as its agent, and that quite a few of what I call 'the usual suspects' have signed up to Mr Gibbs's petition. I also see that Mr Gibbs is saying, 'the National Trust consultations indicated a high level of public support, as does the number of people who have signed up for my petition.' I respectfully suggest that the so-called consultations by the Trust were nothing more than an indoctrination exercise costing many thousands of pounds and much glossy paper. They did not succeed in convincing the people who are really threatened by this silly and costly scheme - those who live in and close by the ancient Fen-edge settlements of Wicken, Upware, Burwell, Reach, Swaffham Prior, Swaffham Bulbeck, Lode & Longmeadow, Bottisham, Stow cum Quy, Fen Ditton, Horningsea and Waterbeach. And, of course, it is the food-growing that helps to feed the whole country that is also threatened by the Trust's advancing water and weeds. Come to your senses, Cambridgeshire, East Anglia and England!

    It's a £100 millions - and more!
    Posted By: Geoffrey Woollard on 20-Oct-2009
    It's not a '£2 million project': it's going to cost £100 millions - and more!

    Woollard - true to form!
    Posted By: Ben Gibbs on 20-Oct-2009
    Mr Woollard is quite wrong - and deeply offensive - to suggest that I am an "agent" of the National Trust. But this is true to form. When your views are as entrenched and politically motivated as his are, then of course you're going to defend them like a cornered fen tiger, throwing all manners and respect out of the window. I set up the petition because I - like the majority of people in the region - support the Trust's Vision for Wicken Fen, which would extend what is a beautiful reserve and provide residents and visitors alike with much needed recreational facilities. And, if I'm being honest about it, I also set it up because I was fed up of hearing Mr Woollard going on and on each week with the same worry-mongering misinformation. And here he goes again. At least he's no longer trying to pull the wool over our eyes with the ridiculous notion that the Vision threatens our food security.

    Mr Gibbs may not be an 'agent' but ....
    Posted By: Geoffrey Woollard on 20-Oct-2009
    Mr Gibbs may not be an 'agent' but the National Trust could have written his petition for him: it's in their sort of language. And, for the record, if we do lose so much of our best Fen land, our food security is bound to be at greater risk!

    [No Subject]
    Posted By: Dave on 20-Oct-2009
    Does the Trust Vision support the building of a ugly bridge around the Reach area that will be seen for miles around that is in the planning stages (well plans have been submitted) causeing the view around the Fens to be drasctically changed. If the bridge goes ahead then this bridge will be seen from miles around ruining the view of the surrounding areas and the area that the Trust want to protect.

    ReplyDelete
  162. And more:

    Wicken Fen Vision
    Posted By: Mary O'Toole on 20-Oct-2009
    The argument is being oversimplified and polarised...either you are in favour of nature reserves (most people are) or you are a proponent of unenvironmental farming. (most people are not) However most people are not aware of the implications for re-flooding the fen, nor of the great steps being made in agricultural practice to support wildlife. The reality of the situation is immensely complex. The fens, as a landscape, have provided food (for example fish and wildfowl which were exported to London) and sustainable building materials (sedge, rush, willow) for thousands of years. Draining began long before the Romans. Peatlands are only part of the fen, with highly fertile silt fen playing a part, and pockets of other geology forming 'islands'. Peat bogs only form over thousands of years, and are the product of specific climatic and biological conditions; they will not be re-instated just by allowing land to re-flood tomorrow. The Wicken Vision is being promoted largely by quangos without the necessity for public consultation, as 'reversion to nature' does not require any planning permission. Unless the 'Vision' is subject to public debate, through the normal planning process, such changes are profoundly undemocratic. Recent research at Durham university has shown that native species of mosquito are capable of acting as malarial vectors. Historically, the fens were plagued by 'ague' until the last drainage in the late 19th century. With the rise in global warming, is it wise to reinstate large areas of stagnant water which will become breeding grounds for vectors of malaria? (and possibly worse semi-tropical diseases which are reaching mainland Northern Europe) Such far-reaching changes to landscape should not occur without full public debate, especially as there are proposals to greatly increase the population by major housing development in this area. No-one appears to be requesting that the Norfolk Broads be allowed to fill in with peat! 'The Vision' may well be in the public good, but it should not happen piecemeal and by expoiting a loophole in planning law. Discussion at the highest public level and democratic debate is first required.

    ReplyDelete
  163. From the Cambridge News (20/10/2009):

    Letters

    Value will soar

    Mr Juniper and Mr Woollard, when they discuss the Wicken Fen Vision programme, may wish to consider predictions made by Knight Frank (land agents) in their annual predictions.

    It is estimated the value of farmland will increase from a top price of £4,970 today to £10,000 in 2015. The surge in pricing is set to be driven by a shortage of quality farmland as the global population expands and demand for food increases.

    David Carrington
    Whitton Close
    Swavesey

    ReplyDelete
  164. From the Cambridge News (21/10/2009):

    Letters

    Horses danger

    Geoff Robinson was extremely lucky to get close enough to photograph the wild Polish Konik stallions fighting at Wicken Fen (News, October 15). He was also fortunate that they went after one another and not him.

    Other visitors to the National Trust's extensive lands in the Fens should be very wary. The Trust itself advises these animals should be observed "from a respectful distance". A single stallion, even from a tame breed, can be unpredictable. Several stallions, of a wild and untamed type, can be dangerous.

    Readers may be wondering why we have wild horses in the Cambridgeshire Fens. The Koniks were brought in at great expense by the National Trust and, along with Highland cattle, are supposed to be helping to recreate the old Fens on thousands of acres of hitherto fine food-producing land.

    These "native" breeds are frightening the lives out of the native Fen villagers and are regarded as a sick joke by food-producing farmers.

    Geoffrey Woollard
    River Bank
    Upware

    ReplyDelete
  165. From the Cambridge News (26/10/2009):

    Letters

    Surely, restoring nature is good?

    I continue to be amazed by the attitude of Geoffrey Woollard to the W icken Fen Vision.

    Initially, I was outraged by one of his previous letters where he seemed to feel he was talking on behalf of all local residents. Before he can become the voice of Waterbeach, perhaps he should check on the views of others.

    I am bewildered by his continuous drive to stop anything natural coming back to the area. I appreciate these ponies are not really natural to the area. Of course not, we've already destroyed all that.

    However, to try and repair some of the damage we have done - and make an island of nature in a land of 'sterile' farmland from which most of the fertility and organic matter has already been removed by decades of intensive farming - is surely a move in the right direction. As for being dangerous, I suspect the photographer used a telephoto lens and had the sense to not disturb the wonderful action he was seeing.

    Maybe a move to the massive corn fields of America would suit Geoffrey, where he can be comfortable that there is little of the natural world and animal left to disturb him?

    Lewis Turner
    Winfold Road
    Waterbeach
    Cambridge

    ReplyDelete
  166. From the Cambridge News (27/10/2009):

    Letters

    Strong support for fen vision

    As a resident of Reach - a village on the edge of the fens and a mere stone's throw from the Wicken Fen Vision - I was interested to see the result of your poll on support for this project.

    The outcome - 79 per cent in favour compared to 21 per cent against (with over 2,000 people expressing an opinion) - suggests strong local endorsement for this long-term plan to create a rich and varied habitat for wildlife.

    Some of the gains are already evident - this year I have had the pleasure of seeing relative rarities such as nesting avocets, and whilst many of the fields appear "weedy" in the short term (reclamation is inevitably a slow process) this transitional stage has been alive with skylarks and other species that have shown steep declines elsewhere in the countryside.

    Ongoing improvements in cycle routes across the fen will greatly improve access by those living in Cambridge, so that it isn't just fen village residents, like myself, who can appreciate and benefit from these changes. The results of your poll indicate that the desire to see this project succeed is strong, and I hope that the National Trust takes heart from this measure of support for its plans.

    David Thomas
    Great Lane
    Reach

    ReplyDelete
  167. From the Ely Standard (29/10/2009):

    Support Grows For Wicken Plan

    Hundreds of people have lent their support to the controversial Wicken Fen Vision by signing a new petition.

    Only a month after the 'Wicken Fen Vision' petition was launched online, more than 700 people have shown their support for the campaign by adding their names to the rapidly growing list.

    The petition was set up by Ely resident Ben Gibbs, to help garner support for the multi-million pound project, which has increasingly divided public opinion in recent months.

    The Vision is the brainchild of the National Trust, which is hoping to convert 5000 hectares of farmland between Wicken and Cambridge into a sprawling wildlife reserve within 100 years.

    Campaigners fighting the plans however, believe that the Vision will turn thousands of acres of prime farming land into unmanageable wetland and the group have almost 400 names on a petition asking the Government to put a stop to the scheme.

    Upware resident Geoffrey Woollard, who is leading the 'Save our Fens' campaign, said: "The National Trust has mobilised its people in support of the so-called 'Wicken Vision,' and I see that quite a few of what I call the usual suspects have signed up to Mr Gibbs' petition.

    "Mr Gibbs is saying that the National Trust consultations have indicated a high level of public support for the scheme, as have the number of people who have signed up for the petition.'

    "I respectfully suggest that the so-called consultations by the Trust were nothing more than an indoctrination exercise costing many thousands of pounds and much glossy paper and they did not succeed in convincing the people who are really threatened by this silly £100 million-plus scheme."

    Mr Gibbs however, dismissed concerns about threats to the nation's farmland, saying in the petition: "We do not believe that the Vision in any way threatens the UK's food security as some opponents have stated. Rather, we feel that the country as a whole will benefit greatly from it.

    ReplyDelete
  168. From the Cambridge News (29/10/2009):

    Letters

    Talk to people hit by 'Vision'

    I see that the National Trust has mobilised its people in support of the so-called Wicken Vision, that the Trust is using Mr Ben Gibbs as its agent, and that quite a few of what I call 'the usual suspects' have signed up to Mr Gibbs's petition.

    I also see that Mr Gibbs is saying, "the National Trust consultations indicated a high level of public support, as does the number of people who have signed up for my petition".

    I respectfully suggest that the so-called consultations by the Trust were nothing more than an indoctrination exercise costing many thousands of pounds and much glossy paper.

    They did not succeed in convincing the people who are really threatened by this silly and costly scheme - those who live in and close by the ancient Fen-edge settlements of Wicken, Upware, Burwell, Reach, Swaffham Prior, Swaffham Bulbeck, Lode & Longmeadow, Bottisham, Stow cum Quy, Fen Ditton, Horningsea and Waterbeach.

    And, of course, it is the food-growing land that helps to feed the whole nation that is also threatened by the trust's advancing water and weeds.

    Come to your senses, Cambridgeshire, East Anglia and England!

    Chapel Farm
    River Bank
    Upware
    Near Ely

    ReplyDelete
  169. From the Cambridge News (2/11/2009):

    Letters

    Far cry from conservation

    Every new spokesman for the wretched 'Wicken Vision' farrago adds to its contradictions and its disregard for waste in our time.

    Firstly the propaganda persuaded us it was in accord with the original principles of the National Trust in creating a wetland for wildlife, but now we have a plan for pony trails and cycle paths and tracks everywhere with new bridges to let in the idle hordes, money, of course, no object for these misguided advocates sensing security no matter how far they drift from ideals of conservation.

    A hundred year plan, they call it, meaning procrastination out of indecision and inexperience. It is appalling that the National Trust has allowed itself to drift so far from true principles of conservation, clearly unable to resist the tide of money on offer. Will no devoted naturalist ever come forward to speak for his profession?

    From government circles now we are being urged to grow more food on our own land for a growing population and in view of climate change affecting fertility in other food growing countries. I can but beg fen farmers not to sell their acres for this untimely scheme, the consequences of which would prove most unsettling for those living nearby. It would be an artificial enterprise using chemical control and also damming - indeed one big mechanised mess.

    I have carried my green ticket all my life and this scheme denies it.

    Anthony Day
    Pond Green
    Wicken

    ReplyDelete
  170. From the Cambridge News (4/11/2009):

    Letters

    Lewis Turner of Waterbeach (Letters, October 26) has been reading too much science fiction. His suggestion that the Cambridgeshire Fens are "sterile" is just too ridiculous for words.

    According to my dictionary (Webster's) "sterile" means "unfruitful, unproductive, not fertile". I can assure Mr Turner that there is no more fruitful, productive and fertile land in the kingdom than that in our Cambridgeshire Fens.

    I can illustrate the point by describing something odd that occurred here a couple or so years back. There appeared in my fen yard a plant that just grew and grew - as does most plant life in the Fens - and it was only during this summer that I was told that it was Japanese Knotweed. Because it is in the fruitful, productive and fertile Fen, it has grown and grown - to some 15 feet tall. Needless to say, I am going to get rid of this alien invader by using Roundup. (I wonder if Roundup would rid us of another alien invader, the National Trust's so-called "Wicken Vision"?).

    As to David Thomas of Reach (Letters, October 27), all I can say is that he is a brave man, for I know of few others in his village who favour the "Wicken Vision".

    Geoffrey Woollard
    River Bank
    Upware

    ReplyDelete
  171. From the Cambridge News (4/11/2009):

    Letters

    Lunacy to lose more farmland

    Regarding the report on future food production needing to be increased by 50 per cent over the next 40 years (News, October 22), the Royal Society believes this to be the case.

    In Cambridgeshire the Wicken Fen and the Great Fen project will between them remove 24,000 acres of fenland food production to return them to wetlands. This is lunacy on a grand scale and someone needs to put a stop to it before it is too late.

    Roger Robinson
    High Street
    Fen Drayton

    ReplyDelete
  172. From the Ely Weekly News (5/11/2009):

    Letters

    'Vision' is no green scheme

    Sir, Every new spokesman for the wretched "Wicken Vision" farrago adds to its contradictions and its disregard for waste in our time.

    Firstly the propaganda persuaded us it was in accord with the original principles of the National Trust in creating a wetland for wildlife, but now we have a plan for pony trails and cycle paths and tracks everywhere with new bridges to let in the idle hordes, money, of course, no object for these misguided advocates sensing security no matter how far they drift from ideals of conservation. A hundred year plan, they call it, meaning procrastination out of indecision and inexperience.

    It is appalling that the National Trust has allowed itself to drift so far from true principles of conservation, clearly unable to resist the tide of money on offer. Will no devoted naturalist ever come forward to speak for his profession?

    From government circles now we are being urged to grow more food on our own land for a growing population and in view of climate change affecting fertility in other food growing countries. I can but beg fen farmers not to sell their acres for this untimely scheme, the consequences of which would prove most unsettling for those living nearby. It would be an artificial enterprise using chemical control and also damming - indeed one big mechanised mess.

    I have carried my green ticket all my life and this scheme denies it.

    Anthony Day
    Pond Green
    Wicken

    ReplyDelete
  173. From the Ely Standard (5/11/2009):

    Letters

    A poor idea

    Maybe I have got it wrong but reading the articles and letters about the Wicken Fen Vision, it seems as if the people living in the area that will be affected do not want to be subjected to it.

    If I am right and the support for the Vision is coming from people living outside the affected area then their support is no more than attempted dictatorship by the majority.

    Sometimes, if it is in the national or local interest, people have to be dispossessed, moved away or live near unpleasant things.

    However, this is not the case for Wicken Fen, the Vision seems to be quite the reverse and not in the national interest (loss of 22 square miles of good arable land at a time when world food shortages are being predicted).

    The Vision wants to take an enormous amount of land. What possible reason can there be for such a large area to be set aside for nature conservation?

    What can be done in 5,000 hectares that couldn't be done in a tenth of that?

    I Robertson
    Ely

    ReplyDelete
  174. From the Ely Standard (5/11/2009):

    Letters

    I'm no agent

    I should like to take issue with the implications of Mr Woollard's comment last week that I have somehow been "mobilised" by the National Trust in support of the Wicken Fen Vision.

    I am a member of the organisation, and a supporter of their plans to expand Wicken Fen, but I am in no way their 'agent'. It is my belief that the Vision is good for residents, visitors, wildlife and the environment, together with my concern over Mr Woollard's campaign of misinformation against the Vision that lies behind my setting up the e-petition.

    I would submit, however, that Mr Woollard may be seeking a refuge in conspiracy theories?

    Ben Gibbs
    By email

    ReplyDelete
  175. From the Cambridge News (9/11/2009):

    Letters

    Wild move on Wicken Fen

    Having rendered thousands of acres of fertile, arable fenland impotent for the purposes of cultivating vegetables, the National Trust have now introduced dangerous wild konik stallions, freely roaming and often stampeding Highland cattle, to their recently created "Wicken Fen Vision".

    In the midst of this mayhem, the Green Party's Tony Juniper, a vociferous supporter of the absurd "Vision", claims that the solution to the country's dependence on food imports, whilst facing an ever increasing population, is to "have a look at how much food we give to animals for meat, rather than eating it ourselves (News, October 22).

    If such ridiculous nonsense persists, both will eventually become extinct by means of starvation.

    A Seymour
    Morley Drive
    Ely

    ReplyDelete
  176. From the Cambridge News (9/11/2009):

    Letters

    Give us your view, Mr Page

    The exchange of views surrounding the Wicken Fen Vision programme continues to put forward interesting opinions from both sides of the argument.

    One of the most interesting I find is the claim that the fertility of the land in Swaffham Prior fen has just about expired, which will make it unviable for food production.

    When I drove through this summer, the crops looked pretty good to me and did not seem any different to when I first got to know the area some 20 years ago.

    The problem with this is, I am neither farmer nor agronomist, but I know a man who is.

    A farmer, an author, a promoter of all things rural through a national newspaper column, a founder member of the Countryside Restoration Trust and a board member of the National Trust.

    Add to that, the one-time presenter of TV's One Man and His Dog and we have Robin Page.

    So, Robin, what is your take on all of this?

    David Carrington
    Whitton Close
    Swavesey

    ReplyDelete
  177. Good news!

    The 'SaveOurFens' E-Petition to 10 Downing Street has attracted 400 signatures to date. In actual fact, the total of names that are listed on it exceeds 400 as some are multiple signatures, i.e. 'Daniel and Claire White.'

    Thanks to all friends and supporters!

    ReplyDelete
  178. From the Ely Weekly News (12/11/2009):

    Letters

    Stallions of fens are a sick joke

    Sir, Photographer Geoff Robinson was extremely lucky to get close enough to photograph the wild Polish konik stallions fighting at Wicken Fen (Stallions caught sparring in the fens - Weekly News, October 22).

    He was also fortunate that they went after one another and not him.

    Other visitors to the National Trust's extensive lands in the fens should be very wary. The trust itself advises that these animals should be observed "from a respectful distance". A single stallion, even from a tame breed, can be unpredictable. Several stallions, of a wild and untamed type, can be dangerous.

    Your readers may be wondering why we have wild horses in the Cambridgeshire fens. The koniks were brought in at great expense by the National Trust and, along with Highland cattle from Scotland, are supposed to be helping to re-create the old Fens on thousands of acres of hitherto fine food-producing land.

    These "native" breeds are frightening the lives out of the native fen villagers and are regarded as a sick joke by food-producing farmers.

    Geoffrey Woollard
    Chapel Farm, River Bank
    Upware

    ReplyDelete
  179. From the Cambridge News (12/10/2009):

    Letters

    Time right to elect a Green

    David Howarth's shock decision to step down in the next general election means that both the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are currently now without a candidate only six months before the election has to be called.

    David Howarth has been a hard working MP, but his departure presents an even greater opportunity for a new agenda for Cambridge.

    I believe there are solutions to the big problems that would benefit Cambridge. For example, the city could play a leading role in the development of the clean and efficient technologies of the future.

    We could develop a leadership role in showing how it is possible to deliver affordable housing, modern infrastructure and commercial development that also enables high quality green living. There is little point in paying lip service to sustainability without practical positive change on the ground. This agenda would be underpinned by the Green Party's well developed and progressive policies on the economy, education, defence and public services.

    In the Euro elections last summer, the Green Party secured 18 per cent of the city's vote, a share greater than Labour. With David Howarth's departure the city seat is now even more marginal.

    I hope the people of Cambridge will see this as a major opportunity to create change by electing the country's first Green MP, unencumbered by old ways of doing politics and with a real passion and track record for creating positive change. I am already working hard to convince the voters of Cambridge I am able to do that job.

    Tony Juniper
    Green Party Parliamentary
    candidate for Cambridge
    Belvoir Road
    Cambridge

    ReplyDelete
  180. From the Burwell Bulletin:

    Letters

    Predictions for the future show that we need our farm land

    Friends of the Earth are predicting that a loaf of white bread will cost £6.48 in 2030 and that the price of a pint of Pilsner lager will be £18.48 in the same year. They are also predicting that 'millions more people will go hungry here in the UK alone.'

    But Tony Juniper, the former executive director of Friends of the Earth and the Green Party's parliamentary candidate for Cambridge, is enthusiastically in favour of removing from food production thousands of acres of our finest Cambridgeshire fen land for his latest pet fad - the National Trust's so-called 'Wicken Vision.'

    Is it me that is stupid in attempting to defend farming in Cambridgeshire or is it Mr Juniper and his fellow Greenies? I leave it to your readers to judge.

    Geoffrey Woollard.
    Upware

    ReplyDelete
  181. From the Ely Weekly News (12/11/2009):

    Letters

    Food argument is just ridiculous

    Sir, Having rendered thousands of acres of fertile, arable fenland impotent for the purposes of cultivating vegetables, the National Trust have now introduced dangerous wild konik stallions, freely roaming and often stampeding Highland cattle, to their recently created "Wicken Fen Vision".

    In the midst of this mayhem, the Green Party's Tony Juniper, a vociferous supporter of the absurd "Vision", claims that the solution to the country's dependence on food imports, whilst facing an ever increasing population, is to "have a look at how much food we give to animals for meat, rather than eating it ourselves (News, October 22).

    If such ridiculous nonsense persists, both will eventually become extinct by means of starvation.

    A Seymour
    Morley Drive
    Ely

    ReplyDelete
  182. From the Ely Standard (12/11/2009):

    Wicken: The great debate

    Wicken Vision is a 100-year project by the National Trust to create a landscape scale nature reserve and green lung for Cambridgeshire and the East of England, covering 53 sq km, from the existing Wicken Fen National Nature Reserve to the outskirts of Cambridge. The Vision will see the re-creation of a mosaic of fenland habitats to help protect and conserve endangered species of wildlife. During the last decade more than 400 hectares of land has been purchased and the process has begun of returning this land to natural fenland habitat. The East Cambridgeshire community is split on whether the loss of agricultural land is a good or a bad thing. This week, we asked Ben Gibbs to put the case for the vision and Geoffrey Woollard to argue against.

    Ben Gibbs explains why he is in favour of the Wicken Fen Vision.

    So, why am I in favour of the Wicken Fen Vision. Firstly, I've enjoyed visiting the reserve for as long as I can remember, and I have a deep respect for the National Trust.

    I also feel strongly that we need organisations like the Trust to identify and preserve our natural and cultural heritage where it is endangered by other parties, or where it needs a little to get by on its own.

    The National Trust's plan at Wicken is to create a new nature reserve of wetland, grassland, scrub and woodland, eventually including about 20 square miles of land - currently in mixed use - between Cambridge and Wicken Fen.

    The land, which has lost nearly 36 million cubic metres of soil over the last 200 years through the erosion and drying associated with intensive agriculture and drainage, will be slowly returned to its natural fenland state, creating a much needed habitat for many threatened species of wildlife, helping reinstate the peat soils and reducing carbon loss.

    In addition, the new reserve will create much-needed recreational space for residents of a county that has significantly less accessible countryside than the national average.

    The Vision will provide new resources for visitors on foot, cycle and horseback, creating a network of footpaths and circular routes, and eventually providing a safe and virtually traffic-free cycle route from Cambridge to Ely.

    I believe - and it would appear that a majority of people in the region agree - that the Vision is well planned, and that the National Trust can be trusted to carefully manage the transformation, preserving the area's important heritage sites and Lodes and avoiding the 'junglification' that Mr Woollard harps on about, whilst returning the fen to its natural state.

    I do not believe that the Vision - which, after all, accounts for less than 0.1% of the UK's arable farmland - can be said to threaten the UK's food security, which depends more on reducing food waste and improving efficiency. Rather, I feel that Cambridgeshire as a whole will benefit greatly from it.

    Ben Gibbs
    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/wickenfenvision/

    ReplyDelete
  183. The Ely Standard 'Great Debate' (continued):

    Geoffrey Woollard argues against the loss of agricultural land.

    After the National Trust decided in 1999 to buy and partially to flood up to 15,000 acres of Fen land between Wicken and Cambridge, neighbours demanded, 'Why don't you do something?'

    I had retired from local politics and I said, 'I'm retired: you do something!'

    But I subsequently attended 'consultation' meetings organised by the Trust in the villages that I had represented on Cambridgeshire County Council, realised that the decision had already been taken and that, far from 'consultation,' the meetings were indoctrination exercises.

    With my local knowledge and my sympathy for those to be adversely affected, I decided that the Trust should not have its way without a fight. So I put some points publicly:

    It is wrong for thousands of acres of the most fertile and productive Fen land to become a welter of water and weeds and an unkempt jungle of elder bushes, ragwort, stinging nettles and thistles, the most vigorous and virulent forms of plant life in this part of Cambridgeshire.

    Though larger landowners may willingly dispose of their property, others see their livelihoods and inheritances threatened and devalued and their families' futures uncertain.

    For those unwilling to sell out to the Trust, neighbouring lands being sold and partially flooded will inevitably raise the water table elsewhere and undermine, threaten and devalue other properties.

    As a Trustee of the 'The Little Chapel in the Fen,' I have a duty to ensure that it is not undermined nor threatened by flooding.

    The Trust is taking on more than it can economically and managerially cope with.

    Nothing has changed since and the latest news on national and world populations and food security lead me to believe that I have been too moderate in the past.

    We can not spare the very best Fen farmland to fulfil unreal dreams.

    Save Our Fens!

    Geoffrey Woollard
    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveOurFens/

    ReplyDelete
  184. From the Ely Standard (19/11/2009):

    Letters

    Trust plan may see many routes lost

    The debate over National Trust plans for Wicken Fen is becoming polarised. The need for a nature reserve is being set against the need for agricultural land. However, for people living in the area concerned, there is more to the argument.

    The nature reserve consists of large fenced enclosures, where herds of non-native wild horses and highland cattle are left to roam. Numerous paths that were previously open to all are no longer useable by dog walkers or horse riders because of the attention of these herds. These include the path between Wicken and Burwell as well as parts of Reach and Burwell Lode banks.

    Latest National Trust plans are to fence off land from the outskirts of Reach across Burwell fen to Wicken as a single enclosure. The proposal includes replacing Burwell Bridge with one that animals can use freely. The effect on local people will be that they can no longer walk or ride through the fen between the villages of Reach, Burwell, Wicken and Upware, without going through a large herd of large and unpredictable animals.

    Farm from improving access for walkers, cyclists and horse riders, many routes are being lost.

    Although the cycle path between Wicken and Lode will be a new route, access to it is being limited. From Burwell, it can be reached by Newnham Drove, which now has a locked gate at the point it meets National Trust land, or by Hightown Drove, where gates, cattle grids and herds of wild animals roaming on the road are proposed. Whilst tourists may be able to cycle between Wicken Fen and Anglesey Abbey, local travel through the fen is being hugely disrupted.

    Meanwhile, all the tall trees in the area are being cut down, to prevent crows using them as a vantage point to prey on ground nesting birds, whose nests are regularly trampled by the cattle and horses. The Vision appears less of a nature reserve and more of a badly managed zoo than the National Trust care to admit.

    Much has been said of the fertile farmland that will be lost to the Vision. Few who walk or ride in the area will have gone far with encountering a crop sprayer, working alongside the path. Usually they continue as people pass, which is not to everyone's taste! If the land is so fertile, surely local farmers could grow organically, without chemical sprays. This would result in higher prices for the crop, as well as more local support for their point of view.

    Barry Garwood
    Ness Road
    Burwell

    Letters

    Regarding the Wicken Fen expansion, the National Trust states quite clearly that "we do not have powers of compulsory purchase nor do we seek them" (http://www.wicken.org.uk/vision_faq.htm).

    Since all the local landowners are, apparently, opposed to the project, then they won't sell their land to the National Trust. Therefore the expansion won't happen. So Mr Woollard et al can stop writing letters and find some more useful outlet for their energies.

    Mr Maclean
    Red Lion Lane
    Sutton

    ReplyDelete
  185. From the Ely Weekly News (19/11/2009):

    Letters

    Keep ponies out of argument

    Sir, I reply to Geoffrey Woollard's letter of November 12, 'Stallions are a sick joke'.

    Photography has come a long way since W.H. Fox-Talbot's time. They use telescopic lenses now.

    With all due respect to Mr Woollard, stick to the point; your argument is about land that you do not want flooded because it is prime food-producing soil, not because of some ponies or cattle.

    Alison Arnold
    Fleetwood
    Ely

    Letters

    Thanks to trust for fen walks

    Sir, I have, on several occasions, walked at Wicken Fen, which is a place I love, and feel that we are lucky to have in this area.

    I have often bumped into the wonderful konik ponies and the highland cattle. I have never seen on my walks anyone being frightened by the ponies. In fact, they seem very friendly and have never seen people being chased by them or the cattle. I always keep my dog on a lead when approaching them.

    We are very lucky to have the National Trust at Wicken giving us these lovely walks for us all to get out into the countryside to walk and cycle.

    Marion Scott
    Swaffham Road
    Burwell

    Letters

    Great show but please, no rants

    Sir, My letter to you has two purposes.

    The first is to commend ADeC (Arts Development in East Cambridgeshire) for organising Jeremy Hardy's visit to the Maltings on Friday. He is clever, perceptive and very funny, and he entertained the packed house for over two hours. It was an excellent show. Thanks to Jeremy Hardy and ADeC.

    The second is to try to displace Geoffrey Woollard's continuing rant against the National Trust from your letter pages for just one week - a forlorn hope?

    John Shippey
    High Street
    Haddenham

    ReplyDelete
  186. From the Burwell Bulletin (21/11/2009):

    Letters

    Over population crisis

    The chances of my being around in 2030 are remote, so I won't ever know for certain - but my friend Geoffrey Woollard may be correct in publicizing Friends of the Earth's prediction of enormous price increases in basic necessities about that time.

    If so, this will be solely due to the failure of the Friends and world governments to address the real problem, which is over-population.

    That is the direct cause of poverty, and also of of almost every other ill that inflicts us all today. Homo sapiens has bred like rabbits and is already beginning to drown in its own excreta.

    Unless serious action is taken to restrict the planet's birthrate, the effects of having more than twice as many people on Earth as it can sustain will inevitably result in shortages and price rises. But that will be only a minor annoyance.

    The actuality is that over-population will cause more world-wide strife and famine, which will be more serious than having to pay £18.48 for a pint of lager. Incidentally, what will that be in Euros - which by then we will be forced to use unless our daft so-called government gets us out of the EU?

    Robert Rodrigo

    ReplyDelete
  187. From the Ely Standard (26/11/2009):

    Letters

    Geoffrey Woollard Is Entertaining But Check Out The Environment Agency Website

    May I take this opportunity to thank Geoffrey Woollard for the entertainment he has provided in recent months with his ever more inventive criticisms of the National Trust proposals for the expansion of Wicken Fen over the next 100 years.

    I am afraid though that he may be tilting at the wrong windmill. If he were to spare a few minutes on the Environment Agency web site he would find a consultation document called The Great Ouse Tidal River Strategy. The full document is very detailed but contains two main proposals which are rather alarming.

    The first deals with the plan to reduce the amount of silt in the river beyond Denver Sluice. This has been building up over the past 50 years and is now at level which is restricting the main river flow. In times past, the channel was dredged but this is not fashionable now because it is expensive and "the channel may silt up again". I used to try a similar excuse to get out of washing my hands as a child but mother would not accept it. The agency hopes to deal with the silt by changing the management of the water controls at Denver and hoping for heavy rain. The other contentious proposal is to allow the level of flood protection offered by the South Level Barrier Bank (that is the bank which stops the water from the Bedford River flowing into the fen) to decline from the present 1 in 120 risk to 1 in 20 over the next 70 years or so. The bank would then be maintained to provide a 1 in 20 risk level. If this plan is adopted, there is likely to be more acres of wild and natural fen in 100 years' time than the National Trust can imagine. In response to last week's letter from Eddie Holden, the drainage system is at the moment much safer than it was in 1947 despite the points I have made above. The council does not need to buy lots of boats just yet!

    Les Walton
    Hall Street
    Soham

    ReplyDelete
  188. From the Ely Weekly News (26/11/2009):

    Letters

    Battling to save next generation

    Sir, To John Shippey of Haddenham (Great show but please no rants, Letters, November19), I say sorry if my interventions in the National Trust's so-called 'Wicken Vision' controversy seem like rants.

    I have been battling this batty scheme for eight years, just a little longer than our poor armed forces have been involved in Afghanistan. And whilst the latter have suffered grievous losses for little gain, I have succeeded in getting the Wicken Vision debated in the columns of this and other newspapers and elsewhere.

    The reason I have succeeded is because the debate resonates with this paper's readers, many of whom recognise that we cannot afford as a nation with an ever-growing population - some home-grown and some due to immigration, to lose our very best food-growing fen farmland to what the trust seems to want - a thistle-growing reserve that is good for neither man nor beast.

    Oh yes, and I have recently discovered that the Trust, the largest landowner in these fens, is being supported in its thistle-growing by the European Common Agricultural Policy through our own Defra. When I find out how many hundreds of thousands of pounds are involved I will let you know.

    To Alison Arnold, of Ely (Keep ponies out of the argument - Letters, November 19), I say that I am trying my hardest to 'stick to the point' - the point is as set out above.

    And to Marion Scott, of Burwell (Thanks to trust for fen walks - Letters, November 19), I say please do be careful when around those wild horses and cattle. Even the National Trust says that we should exercise caution when in the animals' company

    To your more silent readers I say your future and the futures of your children and grandchildren are at stake. We must not permit misguided mistakes to be made by those who are set above us.

    Geoffrey Woollard
    Chapel Farm
    Upware

    ReplyDelete
  189. From the Ely Weekly News (3/12/2009):

    Letters

    Sir, Justin Scully, paid to boast on behalf of the National Trust, may be justifying his job by such boasting, but the Wicken Fen National Nature Reserve having had a "36 per cent leap" to a total of 36,000 visitors at that once-peaceful place points up perfectly the fundamental contradiction at the heart of the Trust's so-called Wicken Vision.

    If the vision is successful by the trust's standards, it will draw thousands more visitors who will frighten off the wildlife.

    If it is not successful and few additional visitors come, then what is the point of the huge loss of food production from our fertile Fen farmland and the expending of over £100 millions on such as buying up the land and letting it go to ruin?

    The Cambridgeshire Fens are full of wildlife, partly because of the diversity of the existing habitats, some man-made, some made by nature. Indeed, I have often said that there is more wildlife in my quite wild back garden, which lies close to the River Cam, than at Wicken Fen itself. Perhaps that is because my garden is quiet and has few visitors.

    Geoffrey Woollard
    Chapel Farm
    Upware

    ReplyDelete
  190. From the Cambridge News (4/12/2009):

    Letters

    'Wicken Vision' is contradictory

    Mr Justin Scully, paid to boast on behalf of the National Trust, may be justifying his job by such boasting, but the Wicken Fen National Nature Reserve having had a '36 per cent leap' to a total of 36,000 visitors at that once-peaceful place points up perfectly the fundamental contradiction at the heart of the trust's so-called 'Wicken Vision'.

    If the 'Vision' is 'successful' by the trust's standards, it will draw thousands more visitors who will frighten off the wildlife. If it is not 'successful' and few additional visitors come, then what is the point of the huge loss of food production from our fertile Fen farmland and the expending of over £100 millions on such as buying up the land and letting it go to ruin?

    The Cambridgeshire Fens are full of wildlife, partly because of the diversity of the existing habitats, some man-made, some natural. Indeed, I have often said that there is more wildlife in my quite wild back garden, which lies close to the River Cam, than at Wicken Fen itself.

    Perhaps that is because my garden is quiet and has few visitors.

    Geoffrey Woollard
    Chapel Farm
    Ely

    ReplyDelete
  191. From the Ely Weekly News (10/12/2009):

    Letters

    Plants are just selective weeds

    Sir, In reply to Geoffrey Woollard's letter (Battling to save next generation - November 26).

    Actually, all plants are weeds. When you allow and grow certain plants rather than others you are then managing your land to the selective weeds you wish to grow. There's no bad weed, just your perception of it.

    People's values will determine the choices they make and I even quote those which "now believe that humans should know better than to mimic the natural cruelty of nature".

    I think you will find that the National Trust is having to come in-line with other European countries that have long-standing policies on reserves, not the other way round.

    Alison Arnold
    Fleetwood
    Ely

    ReplyDelete
  192. From the Cambridge News (15/12/2009):

    Letters

    CAP cash given for bad farming

    What is the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for? A good question in our Cambridgeshire Fens!

    I am not a big fan of the National Trust's so-called "Wicken Vision", but I had assumed until recently that this silly plan to take fine food producing fenland out of production relied for its funding on the National Lottery, generous grants of taxpayers' cash from such as Mr John Prescott, and money given by members of the trust and others.

    I have now been informed by the trust that the so-called "vision" is also supported to the tune of many thousands of pounds annually by the CAP through the latter's various schemes that are believed by many to have been intended for the support of European agriculture. I receive a relatively small sum myself and most of my land is farmed well and is used for food production. I recently commended a much largerscale neighbour for his fine farming and remarked that he will soon receive a substantial sum on the basis of farming his land properly and keeping it in good heart.

    The National Trust has now owned up to expecting to be in receipt of at least £121,000 per annum for practising the opposite of good farming. It is busily applying for much more money in years to come and, all, so it seems, for letting land in its hands go to rack and ruin and growing thousands of thistles.

    Any idiot can grow thistles. It needs no CAP support.

    This is a European CAP scandal that needs to be exposed.

    Geoffrey Woollard
    River Bank
    Upware

    ReplyDelete
  193. From the Ely Standard (17/12/2009):

    Letters

    Expose CAP scandal

    Your readers will know that I am not a big fan of the National Trust's so-called Wicken Vision, but I had assumed until recently that this silly plan to take fine food-producing Fen land out of production relied for its funding on the National Lottery, generous grants (of taxpayers' cash) and money given by members of the Trust and others.

    Having been prompted to delve further and having threatened to invoke the Freedom of Information Act, I have now been informed by the Trust that the Wicken Vision is also supported to the tune of many thousands of pounds annually by the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) through the latter's various schemes that are believed by many to have been intended for the support of European agriculture. I receive a relatively small sum myself and most of my land is farmed well (with the help of a neighbour) and is used for food production. I recently commended a much larger-scale neighbour for his fine farming and remarked that he will soon receive a substantial sum on the basis of his farming his land properly and his keeping it in good heart.

    The National Trust has now owned up to expecting to be in receipt of at least £121,000 per annum for practicing the opposite of good farming. It is busily applying for much more money in years to come and, all, so it seems, for letting land in its hands go to rack and ruin and growing thousands of thistles.

    Anyone can grow thistles. Growing thistles is extremely easy. It needs no European CAP encouragement nor support.

    This is a European CAP scandal and this European CAP scandal needs to be exposed.

    Geoffrey Woollard
    River Bank
    Upware

    ReplyDelete
  194. From the Cambridge News (18/12/2009):

    Letters

    Preserve calm and beauty

    It was a mob confrontation in 1638 that secured the future of Wicken Fen for the village population.

    It was their cherished resource of fish and wildfowl, their reeds and peat for fuel and it would have been lost at the cost of much suffering.

    We won our fen where others lost theirs at that time of committed drainage and it remained at the service of villagers even after the National Trust took over in 1899.

    But from the 1920s the taking of sedge from the fen was stopped and scrub began to take over. Peatdigging continued outside its boundaries until 1939.

    No person was barred from the fen, nor were they encouraged to enter unless engaged in scientific studies.

    Wicken Fen was a silent place during my childhood in the village, a place haunted by moth sheets at dusk, lamp-lit, its solitude sacred.

    When I returned to live in the village in 1976 I was invited on to the local committee, meeting some of those dedicated naturalists who were busy here in my youth.

    But soon plans were being laid to open the place up to all and sundry.

    Boardwalks were to be laid and a charge for admission and I resigned in protest. The rot had set in.

    And how it has set in since! The cry today (Friday, 18 December) is "there's something for everybody in Wicken Fen", a capitulation to commercialism so far without an outcry from the naturalists of today (Friday, 18 December).

    Further, of course, there is the plan to extend the policy through the murky "Wicken Vision" backed by huge sums of lottery money and misguided minds, amounting to nothing better than a desecration of a landscape beautiful as it stands and of increasing need to this country for growing food.

    And what does this "vision" amount to? Well, sorry, I can't tell you, for it's one big muddle of notions that contradict one another.

    It cannot be for wildlife with all these other ideas for human invasion and recreation for all, under the banner of the National Trust. And what trouble it bodes for those living near - for a hundred years ahead.

    And what appalling loss to food production at a time when the country needs more and more.

    A wasteful, dreadful scheme, then, that would inevitably destroy so much and provide nothing worthwhile in its place.

    We have a calm, beautiful landscape here now with broad spaces for wildlife and we should cherish it as it is and oppose the disruption that is threatened.

    Anthony Day
    Pond Green
    Wicken

    ReplyDelete
  195. From the Cambridge News (18/12/2009):

    Letters

    Where does he stand on fen?

    Quite clearly, the Green Party's Tony Juniper has rigorously campaigned for the deliberate flooding of arable land in the belief that it would become a haven to attract insects, in preference to cultivating vegetables.

    Now that the National Trust has developed his Wicken Fen "Vision" into a commercial theme park by introducing wild Konik stallions, stampeding Highland cattle, organised activities, boat trips, self-guided trails and the "new sport of stand-up paddle-boarding", it is incumbent upon Mr Juniper to reveal whether he still supports the expansion of this decimation of prime fertile farmland. Despite the fact Mr Juniper is vying to become an MP, a straightforward "yes" or "no" would be nice, please.

    Alan Seymour
    Morley Drive
    Ely

    ReplyDelete
  196. From the Ely Weekly News (24/12/2009):

    Letters

    Sir, What is the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for? - A good question in our Cambridgeshire Fens.

    Some of your readers know that I am not a big fan of the National Trust's so-called Wicken Vision, but I had assumed until recently that this silly plan to take fine food-producing Fen land out of production relied for its funding on the National Lottery, generous grants (of taxpayers' cash) from such as John Prescott MP in his former role as Deputy Prime Minister, and money given by members of the trust and others.

    Having been prompted to delve further and having threatened to invoke the Freedom of Information Act, I have now been informed by the trust that the Wicken Vision is also supported to the tune of many thousands of pounds annually by the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) through the latter's various schemes that are believed, by many, to have been intended for the support of European agriculture.

    I receive a relatively small sum myself and most of my land is farmed well (with the help of a neighbour) and is used for food production. I recently commended a much larger-scale neighbour for his fine farming and remarked that he will soon receive a substantial sum on the basis of his farming his land properly and his keeping it in good heart.

    The National Trust has now owned up to expecting to be in receipt of at least £121,000 per annum for practising the opposite of good farming. It is busily applying for much more money in years to come and, all, so it seems, for letting land in its hands go to rack and ruin and growing thousands of thistles.

    Any idiot can grow thistles. Growing thistles is extremely easy. It needs no European CAP encouragement nor support.

    This is a European CAP scandal and this European CAP scandal needs to be exposed.

    Geoffrey Woollard
    Chapel Farm
    Upware

    ReplyDelete
  197. Message received 23/12/2009:

    "Tis better to have tried and failed than never to have tried".... well done with yet another v sensible letter in today's weekly....what a false use of CAP money to SPEND on weeds and rubbish....surely there are more-deserving farm causes than destroying good ag. land....and then the NT being PAID to do it! BUT the NT wields a LOT of power (were it not for the fact that our son pays for our membership, I would cancel my subscription from now on!)

    Rest assured that you have put up a Good Fight....and enjoy the Christmas Festivities. L**** and M*** D

    ReplyDelete
  198. From the Cambridge News (29/12/2009):

    Letters

    Spend a day at Wicken Fen

    My family decided to spend a day at the often applauded, sometimes maligned Wicken Fen Nature Reserve.

    We were pleased to find that it is a family friendly and visually engaging environment filled with great wildlife that would excite any lover of the animal kingdom.

    After the complaints about the reserve in the letters section it was interesting to note that during our drive there it was evident there was certainly nowhere near a shortage of arable farmland as some letters may have led some people to believe.

    I would advise the grumpy naysayers such as Mr Seymour, who have written numerous letters criticising the reserve, to spend a day there with family or friends as they may find it is a more fun place that they had envisioned.

    Mr Michael Jackson
    Butt Lane
    Milton

    ReplyDelete
  199. From the Ely Weekly News (7/1/2010):

    Letters

    Worms make up new finds

    Sir, I hadn't planned to write to you this week but then I noticed the National Trust's latest and most pathetic publicity blurb and I didn't know whether to laugh or cry!

    The trust now boasts of 8,230 species 'new to the records' in its so-called 'Wicken Vision' area. Fine. Good. Well done.

    But look closely at the small print, dear editor and readers. The 8,230 include '43 species of lichen and 35 species of nematode worm.'

    I make just three points:

    First, I really don't care how many lichens and nematode worms the National Trust has in its Wicken jungle.

    Second, if these lichens and nematode worms are 'new to the records,' I guess that said lichens and nematode worms have been there all the time - hiding from the National Trust record keepers.

    And, third, I say, 'What's the big deal?'

    Geoffrey Woollard
    Chapel Farm
    River Bank
    Upware

    ReplyDelete
  200. From the Ely Standard (7/1/2010):

    Letters

    Wicken Fen Project Should Be Stopped

    I feel I can no longer let my frustrations and beliefs go unreported. I agree wholeheartedly with Geoffrey Woollard, whom I have known well for the best part of 40 years, and support his efforts to do battle against this unnecessary and short sighted Wicken Fen project.

    In Farmers Weekly, issue December 18-25 2009, we read 'The growing demand for food around the world has put UK agricultural production back at the heart of the economy and political thinking'.

    Also at the Oxford Farming Conference last January, Secretary of Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Hilary Benn said: "I want British agriculture to produce as much food as possible - no ifs, no buts."

    The hectarage and yield of crops has got to keep going up and up if we are to keep feeding an ever increasing population. A fuel crisis is also not that far away. Gas and oil supplies will run out eventually and we may well have to grow more and more energy either as bio-mass or as bio-diesel. So why in the light of this thinking can't the Government put a stop to this project dreamt up by the National Trust. This organisation does a superb job of preserving historic buildings, many of which the owners have been forced to vacate. Why therefore is it getting involved in removing land from agricultural production?

    The British agricultural industry is one of the most productive in the world but it seems to have the most problems to overcome to be in such a position. Although I would not be directly affected by this project, I have been in and around agriculture, which includes formal training all my life and I am of the opinion we should be as productive as possible, and this project should be stopped forthwith.

    W John Aitchison
    Qua Fen Common
    Soham

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.