Barn Elms

The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT) runs this remarkable new reserve within London. They also run the world-famous site at Slimbridge, Gloucestershire and a number of other sites in the UK.

Barn Elms - The London Wetland Centre

WWT say "The London Wetland Centre is one of the best wildlife habitats in the country, attracting more than 150 different bird, 20 dragonfly and damselfly, 6 bat, 4 amphibian and over 300 butterfly and moth species each year. We have also introduced some native species of plant and animal." We would not argue with that.

Location

Queen Elizabeth Walk, Barnes, SW13. For details see WWT web site.

Directions

Public transport: Bus 283 (goes from Hammersmith station). For further details see WWT web site.

Opening

Nearly all days. For details see WWT web site.

Special features

Excellant site for a wide range of native waterbirds and a large collection of wildfowl from around the world, including rare and endangered species.

Issues

Planning gain and loss

The site used to be disused water treatment area owned by Thames Water. It was 'Metropolitan Open Land' (MOL), which is a planning designation which meant it should not be built on. In fact, permisssion was given to build posh executive housing on some 25% of the site. This so-called 'enabling development' allowed development of the rest of the site as a nature reserve to be financed to the extent of £11 million (a further £5m was obtained from other sources). This raises serious ethical and conservation issues. The whole site was already of considerable wildlife interest. Was it right to give up 25% of the land, which was supposedly protected? While the development of Barn Elms has undoubtedly proceded much faster with the contribution from the developer, there is no doubt that the whole site could have been developed to become a superb nature reserve, either by WWT or someone else. In the longer run, have we lost out? Is giving up and building on 25% of land that was designated as open land and should have been protected by the planning system consistent with the concept of 'sustainable development'?

Transport

For environmental and other reasons, it is very important that people travel to sites such as Barn Elms by 'sustainable' modes of transport ie walking, cycling and public transport. While a new bus service (the 283) has been laid on, it is clear that far more people are driving cars than using other modes. Shamefully, WWT are encouraging and supporting this. They provide large amounts of free car parking on site. This means that, in effect car driving is being subsidised, while users of public transport pay full fares. WWT should be taking a broad environmental perspective. They should charge for parking and they should explain to their visitors why they are charging and what the issues are. After all, the environmental issues of transport as at least as important as the fine details of some duck!

The sordid story of Perry Oaks and Heathrow Terminal 5

When the building of Terminal 5 was being considered, one of the major issues was the destruction of Perry Oaks, one of the best sites for wildfowl and waders in the London. One might have expected WWT of all people to object to the proposal and try to protect the site and its birds. Instead, there was a deafening silence. The reason soon became clear - WWT received a £300,000 'bung' for works on Barn Elms. This came from BAA, operators of Heathrow. While it was jolly nice for WWT to get more money for Barn Elms and while they may have judged that T5 was not a winnable cause, their silence was inexusable. It was a kick in the teeth to the conservation and environment movement and to the local authorities who were trying to save the site. And it sent out all the wrong messages about how 'environmental vandalism' is acceptable as long as potential opponents can bought off.

The volunteer army

There are some 150 volunteers helping out at Barn Elms. In itself this is good and there is no doubt that the volunteers are helping promote the reserve and the conservation agenda. But there has to be concern about all this voluntary labour being sucked into what is already a very good and professionally run reserve. There are dozens of other sites, threatened, unsupported and uncarded for, all with existing wildlife and with potential and all desperately needing voluntary effort. Would it not be better that voluntary effort was foccused on these sites instead of the already suberb and safe Barn Elms? Or is it the case that the people who give time to Barn Elms would not be prepared to do the same for other less glamorous sites?

Links

Habitats
Back to links and contacts
Back to biodiversity introduction

Updated Oct 05

Back

Home