I was sad to read Mr Wells’ reply to my letter about Ilkley tarn. We’ve raised these concerns quite rightly and don’t deserve such an arrogant and condescending response. I’m sure his team are eminently qualified but 50 people have complained about his plans.
For the people who live within walking distance of the tarn, his suggested alternatives aren’t realistic. The jetty by the Old Bridge and the Nature Reserve are simply too far away. It’s hard to find two locations further from Ilkley tarn. We’ve raised plenty of issues with both. Along with accessibility issues for those with limited mobility or special needs and safety issues for those with children.
The tarn is used in many ways by many people. Mr Wells and his team judge it through too narrow a lens. It isn’t simply a “sterile pool” that could become a “jewel” in some national scheme with a few stickleback, newts, and water boatmen. The tarn is already a jewel, and has been so for decades, because of its natural beauty, its accessibility to people of all ages and abilities, its convenient location, and its thriving and friendly population of birds and ducks and moorhens. Insects, stickleback, and aquatic plants aren’t a substitute for the liveliness of ducks or for the visitors, residents, parents, and children who like to feed them.
We must balance the interests of those who manage the tarn with those who use it. This means balancing the ecological benefits of marine invertebrates against the social good of allowing people to freely enjoy the tarn. One mother told me it was because she valued teaching her children to be kind. Can changes over this one small area be so significant they justify losing a benefit we’ve enjoyed, seemingly without issue, for 40 years? It’s up to Mr Wells to define these benefits and we feel he simply hasn’t made the case.
I do think Mr Wells’ claims merit scrutiny. He often says we had “one hundred ducks” but they left as quickly as they came. It was just a blip. Sometimes there’s barely any ducks for months. He relies too heavily on this figure to justify a radical transformation with niche appeal. It’s rather opportunistic. There’s always a spectrum of solutions and Mr Wells’ plan is just one option.
Our petition called for alternatives and suggested three: piping additional fresh water into the tarn, dredging the tarn, and allowing people to feed the ducks responsibly. Mr Wells himself announced a plan to pipe in fresh water six months later. This suggests there’s some merit to our ideas. The tarn is now dangerously shallow and we wonder whether clearing it out every few decades is a better course than transforming it into a fish pond. Perhaps we could designate a feeding area near the outflow to help reduce the build up of future duck poo.
On behalf of the 140 people who signed our petition, and on behalf of the 50 people who complained and had their complaints ignored, I asked Ilkley Town Council to investigate the issue several weeks ago and they have agreed. Hopefully we can preserve the benefits of the tarn for all the people of Ilkley.
From: Nick Crowley, founder of Save Our Tarn
Share