Envrironment groups and scientists challenge Centre Port boss on Wash Barrage plans in Lincolnshire

A ‘green, fetid lake’ is what conservationists warn the Wash could become is plans for a new barage are given the green light.

Last year we revealed that Centre Port Ltd wanted to create an 11-mile barrage between Lincolnshire and Norfolk.

The plan would involve a deep sea container terminal, renewable energy generation, a road across the mouth of the Wash and flood defences to protect south Lincolnshire from the effects of climate change and future tidal surges.

Scientists and conservationists, however, have now said that this would cause ‘catastrophic damage’ to nature.

They’ve hit back at claims made by the developer and argue that it would affect not just the environment, butalso fishing industries thanks to the new deep-water port.

Many attended an event held a couple of weeks ago called ‘The Future of the Wash’ – including James Sutcliffe, CEO of Centre Port Ltd, the company behind the plans.

Other attendees included members of the community as well as staff from conservation organisations and businesses including Norfolk Wildlife Trust, Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, RSPB and Wild Ken Hill.

Conservationists warn the tidal barrier on The Wash could increase atmospheric pollution, exacerbating the impacts of climate change.

They also say this directly contradicts the claims of the developer, and could endanger lives by creating increased flood risk.

Centre Port has said it could create up to 1,200 jobs and plans involve a dual carriageway and a container port. It also aims to generate enough energy to power 600,000 homes.

However, environmentalists are concerned that delvelopers haven’t consulted neighbouring residents about plans enough.

In a joint statement, Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust, Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, Norfolk Wildlife Trust, RSPB and Wild Ken Hill are now countering claims made by the developer.

Gareth Dalglish, Norfolk Wildlife Trust’s nature recovery director, said: “The obvious lack of concern for this delicate wild landscape, and its importance on a local, national and global scale for people and wildlife is deeply concerning.

“This scheme would destroy vast swathes of saltmarsh - a crucial habitat supporting wildlife, commercial fish stocks and a vital carbon store that helps combat climate change. And it won’t just reduce carbon storage - it will exacerbate the issue due to significant carbon emissions linked to the development and management of the barrage and its associated infrastructure.

“The sediments which accumulate in The Wash store 11,000 tonnes of carbon every year; if a barrage is built, this sediment supply into The Wash from the North Sea will be stopped. There are far better ways to deal with climate change and the threat of sea level rise affecting communities than trashing the environment with a huge development.”

RSPB area manager Steve Rowland has said that some residents would be at risk to flooding as well as harming wildlife.

He said: “A tidal barrage would impede the flow of water from the five rivers that drain into The Wash and the tides that cover it every day.

“In doing so the development would destroy our most important site for wildlife in England, and introduce potentially life-threatening flood risks to communities living upstream of the many rivers that currently flow into The Wash and along the coastline.”

Tim Jickells, an emeritus professor at University of East Anglia and retired oceanographer, added: “A tidal barrage will result in The Wash being filled with river water that is very high in phosphates and nitrates, turning it into a green, fetid lake.”

A representative of the King’s Lynn Conservancy Board, which runs the port, asked why they haven’t been offered meaningful engagement from Mr Sutcliffe.

Mr Sutcliffe referenced the fact that he had met with Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust and allayed concerns they have regarding the development.

However, Tammy Smalley, Head of Conservation for Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust said: “The developer’s representative has been told clearly that we are not supportive of this development. The representative of the development met with me in person, after which he was very clearly told that nothing he said had changed our position, and that we would continue to oppose the scheme.”

Dominic Buscall of Wild Ken Hill, a farm and tourism business found on the edge of The Wash, spoke at the event, and said: “As I made clear in my presentation at the event, this idea is highly likely to be catastrophic for The Wash, its wildlife, economy, local people and landscapes.

“While we must be open-minded about how we adapt to climate change, Centre Port’s baseless claims must be met with scrutiny and concern, and that is why Mr Sutcliffe should be challenged at every turn.”

What do you think? Are you concerned that a barrier on The Wash could have a negative impact on the area? Or do you think the benefits would outweigh any downsides? Email your views to andrew.brookes@iliffepublishing.co.uk