SOUTH EFFORD MARSH – REVISED ENVIRONMENT AGENCY PLANS

The EA has responded to questions raised at an Aveton Gifford Parish Council meeting about the proposed flooding of South Efford Marsh with sea water  in the following document:- EA response to questions.

If you have any comments on these revised plans, prior to the public meeting on 17th September, why not start a discussion going on this website?

4 Responses to “SOUTH EFFORD MARSH – REVISED ENVIRONMENT AGENCY PLANS”

  • Webmaster Bill:

    Action Needed!
    The status quo at the moment is the Eviroment Agency has probably what it regards as a 50/50 go – stop result of the letters received as after their first consultation in the AG village hall. Please read the response here (http://auneconservation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/EA-response-to-questions.pdf). My belief is that this is not a true picture therefore it is essential that everybody makes there feelings on the subject known otherwise we will have a disastrous outcome foisted on us with no way back. Please make you views known either here or to the EA direct or AG Parish council.
    Being a member of the ACA or leaving it to AG parish cousil is not enough in this instance, for a democratic result action is needed.

  • Alan Stapleton:

    I was at the Environment Agency presentation and not impressed by EA approach, their main justification for the project was based on the assumption that what is good nationally must be good for this site. They have been absent from many Avon Estuary Forum meetings so have only themselves to blame for a general lack of support for this project locally.

    I am personally in favour of saltmarsh development on the site but I am a technical person rather than a local resident. I believe a better technical case for the project can be made and if it was the local residents could be won over!

    One of the benefits claimed by EA for the new reduced scheme is less impact on existing septic tanks. This indicates that their design for the original scheme was not as robust as they claimed it to be at the presentation.

  • Stuart Watts:

    My personal opinion is that the salt marsh creation scheme (please don’t dignify it with the term ‘plan’) would be an expensive experiment with an unpredictable outcome, apart from a reduction in local biodiversity.

  • Guy Attfield:

    For nearly sixty years, family connections (past and present) have brought me to the South Hams as a visitor. I was appalled to learn recently of the Environment Agency’s scheme to destroy South Efford Marsh in an attempt to turn it into a salt-marsh.

    On an almost daily basis, the Government announces further cuts in public spending, yet the EA, the supposed custodian of our environment, proposes to spend a large amount of public money on a non-essential experiment, the only certain result of which would be the destruction of a long-established, stable and environmentally valuable lowland fresh-water wetland habitat. There is no certainty that by destroying the marsh’s tidal defences to allow brackish water to flood it at high tide will turn the marsh into a salt-marsh habitat of value.

    Imagine the public outcry if the EA were proposing to do the same thing to Slapton Ley. South Efford Marsh is, in its own way equally valuable, in part by being virtually unknown and thus attracting few human visitors.

    This misbegotten scheme is a monstrous misuse of public money. ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’

Leave a Reply