Bourne Stream PartnershipPUBLIC CONSULTATION ON HABITAT ENHANCEMENT OPTIONS FOR COY POND GARDENS To find out the views of the local community on the four options for habitat enhancement work in Coy Pond Gardens to help determine the way forward for this development
The Bourne Stream is a typical urban watercourse and is prone to periods of poor water quality following rainfall events, particularly after dry summer conditions. The resultant “first flush” from surface water drains leads to bacterial contamination of the stream and the bathing beach at Bournemouth Pier. This can lead to the failure of the Bathing Water Directive Guideline standards.
To investigate ways to improve stream water quality the Environment Agency contracted Peter Brett Associates to produce a scoping study for incorporating surface water run-off best management practices (BMPs) in the catchment (Peter Brett Associates, 1999). This report put forward possible in-stream features, such as ponds and infiltration ditches to increase retention times and provide treatment to improve water quality.
To take forward this work a partnership of local public and private organisations has been formed. This partnership has agreed a strategy (Bourne Stream Partnership, 2000) for the catchment that includes the promotion of source protection and in-stream SUDS to improve water quality, habitat and biodiversity.
In October 2001, Peter Brett Associates produced a feasibility study (Peter Brett Associates, 2001) to identify options for habitat enhancement work in Coy Pond Gardens, one of the areas highlighted in the 1999 report. The four options were:
This report summarises the public consultation on these four options.
In addition, another option, based on Option 1, proposed by a local resident was considered by Peter Brett Associates (Peter Brett Associates, 2002), although this did not form part of the formal public consultation.
The public consultation was held in St. Johns Church, Surrey Road on Thursday 23rd May 2002 between 7 and 9pm, and on Friday 24th May 2002 between 9 and 12pm. A flyer advertising the event was distributed by the Friends of Coy Pond to local residents. In addition, two press releases were issued before and after the event and there were three press articles on the event.
i)
The number of people who attended the sessions was not recorded.
ii)
The results from the questionnaires are shown in Tables 1, 2 &
3,
Figure 1.
iii)
88 questionnaires were completed, of which 60% visited the gardens
on a daily basis and lived within one or two roads of the Gardens (See
Table 1).
iv)
The majority of respondents (85%) supported a change in the Gardens
(See Figure 1), with most (51%) supporting Option 1, an in-stream pond
at the top of the Gardens (See Table 2).
Overall, the in-stream meanders (Option 2), is the next preferred
option (See Table 2). v) The main concern was proper long-term maintenance of the schemes as shown in Table 3 and mentioned in the comments book.
Table 1 : Answer to question 1 How often do you visit Coy Pond gardens?
Figure 1: Answer to Question 2 In principle, do you support a change to the Gardens?
Table 2 : Responses to Question 3 If you do support a change, please rank the options in order of preference
Notes: Only 39 questionnaires had question 3 answered correctly, 7 were not filled in at all and 40 were filled in but not correctly.
Table 3: Responses to open question 4
This was a successful event and, although the actual number of people attending was not recorded, 88 questionnaires were completed by people living by and visiting the Gardens. This success was mainly due to the existence and involvement of the local Friends of Coy Pond Group, together with the use of a local venue and good press coverage. The leaflet, whilst providing a useful hand-out, did not stimulate any further responses from local residents.
The partnership is happy to proceed with proposals for the Gardens as the majority of local residents supported some form of development in the Gardens. The preferred option is the development of a pond at the top end of the gardens (Option 1) and this will take into account the additional proposal reviewed by Peter Brett Associates (Peter Brett Associates, 2002). The Partnership will also support the development of in-stream meanders as overall this was the second preferred option and has the best cost/benefit ratio for habitat enhancement (Peter Brett Associates, 2001).
The Partnership has taken note of the comments made by the respondents and in particular will ensure there is a management plan in place for the future maintenance of the development in the gardens.
It is worth pointing out the Partnership is also undertaking other work in the catchment to complement this in-stream habitat enhancement work.
i)
To design and construct in-stream habitat features in Coy Pond
Gardens to enhance the stream for the local community and wildlife.
ii)
To produce an agreed management plan before proceeding with the
development to ensure long-term maintenance of the features is
addressed. 7.0 References Bourne Stream Partnership (2000) Bourne Stream Strategy Peter Brett Associates (1999) Scoping Study for Surface Water Run-off BMPs in the Bourne Stream Catchment Peter Brett Associates (2001) Feasibility Study. Bourne Stream Coy Pond Gardens Peter Brett Associates (2002) Bourne Stream Coy Pond Gardens. Comment on Proposals by P Jones Esq. |
