|
|
|
|
|
BLUEBELL WOOD CHILDREN’S HOSPICE: OUR VIEWPOINT
Sometimes one’s words must be closely guarded to avoid misinterpretation. As Prince Philip has no doubt learned to his cost and many a politician has seen his or her career abruptly end at the utterance of a few ill chosen words. When dealing with the press this is never more important as RDOS has recently found.
Many of you will probably have heard of plans to build a new Bluebell Wood Children’s Hospice on former colliery land at Dinnington. This hospice has now been granted planning permission after some local objections from conservationists and naturalists. However, it is not the hospice itself to which these objections were based: the cause for concern is the access road to the hospice, which the planners have elected to route straight across the local nature reserve off Cramfit Road. Yorkshire Forward, Renaissance and local wildlife groups have developed this LNR (local nature reserve) over the last ten years, consisting of reed beds, ponds, scrub and wet meadow. Little Ringed Plover, Kingfisher and Lapwing regularly breed at the site and all three are protected species.
This apparent disregard for the wildlife interest is made all the more galling by the practicality of an alternative access road that seems to have been totally ignored. This route, favoured and recommended by the conservationists would involve upgrading an existing road to the east of the hospice site, already serving the nearby industrial park and former sewage works. As well as benefiting wildlife by redirecting works traffic away from the LNR, the alternative route would cost less than building a completely new road and offers a more direct access route (half the length of the Council proposal). Many RDOS members signed a petition to this effect, co-ordinated by SK58 birders and additionally a letter was sent by the President on behalf of RDOS.
Naturally, the local press have followed this story with great interest but in doing so have misrepresented the views of the conservationists. The Rotherham Advertiser in particular was very patronising and suggested that environmentalists were more interested in wildlife than the care of terminally ill children. In response to this Ken wrote a letter to the newspaper, which was published the following week and corrected their misinterpretation of the facts.
The RDOS committee found the misinterpretation by the press very annoying, because as a group we are supporters of the Rotherham Hospice and many of us, ourselves included, will always be grateful for the services given by the local hospices to the community.
Our only objection was to the access road, over which in attempting to highlight the more suitable and viable alternative route, our opinions have been misrepresented.
Fortunately, some benefit has come from our objections because a small compromise has been made in the construction. A steep bank will now be constructed at either side of the road that will at least help shield the sight and sounds of works traffic along the road from the wildlife either side. Whilst minimising disturbance to a lesser degree, this small compromise is insufficient compared to the benefits from the alternative route.
RDOS will always represent its membership in carrying out the core aims of the society, “To safeguard the protection, conservation and study of wild birds and their habitat in the Rotherham area”. In doing so we would expect the media to represent our views honestly and without prejudice, sadly it appears that this will not always be the case. We hope this article helps clarify the situation.
Ben M. Keywood & Ken Tupholme
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chat & Features
