These are my personal views on the Ashby Pond campaign, and do not reflect the views of the committee or other members

Following several public meetings between the Friends of Ashby Pond and the council, on Tuesday Evening, the council gave a presentation at the Beckwood pub in Bottesford proposing how the area around the concrete pond could be improved.

Back in July I became involved in the formation of the Friends of Ashby Pond society, and have seen the group grow in size and stature over the last couple of months.

During this time we’ve worked very hard to firstly get to the bottom of what caused the pond to dry up, and to then work with the council to make suitable reparations to the pond.

This has involved not just a lot of work by members of the group, but also by Liz Redfern the leader of the council and Rob Watham, both of which have attended both public and private meetings with the group and its executive on a regular basis. In addition to this a massive amount of work has been done by the Environmental Services team to look at the viability of the existing pond structure and to also assess the ecology of the area in order to identify what plan would suit both residents and the natural environment best.

When the group was originally set up, it was formed with the objective of restoring the concrete pond. It would appear to me in a personal capacity that this is no longer tenable. Nearby housing development work has not only removed the water feed to the pond, but has also lowered the water table drastically in the areas around the pond, resulting in the pond no longer being viable.

There have been some investigations into the costs of re-supplying the pond with an alternative feed, and these are thought to be in excess of £35k. It is also unclear if once the pond is topped back up, the pond would continue to hold the water, or if enough water could be provided from the potential feed to continue to support a reasonable water level. There are also some concerns about the quality of water which would be available to top the pond up with, and if this would be suitable for fish.

There is a potential that water could be pumped from the beck, but the Environmental team have concerns that as the beck can be subject to pollution that any incident there would knock on to the pond. This would also have to be undertaken under licence, which is not only costly, but may, in times of drought be refused.

A further option may exist once the mud has been removed from the pond, which would be to “puddle” the banks of the existing pond with clay, making a semipermeable  membrane. This may help the pond retain its water once filled but would add considerably to the £35k needed to fit a new feed pipe, and would still have no guarantee that the water quality would be suitable for the fish to be put back in.

Initially the council had proposed carrying out work on the “balancing pond” which is located on the estate opposite. This is part of the drainage system and is designed to provide suitable catchment for the new estate preventing flash floods while also managing the release of this run off water in the beck. Failure to correctly regulate this run off may have adverse effects not just in the local area immediately around the new housing development, but at any point along the five mile run of the beck down to the river Trent.

Following discussions with the group, the council were asked to reconsider alternatives as members felt that their proposal lacked sustainability.

Considering the state of the existing pond, the costs, the water table and the potential that having done all this work it could all go wrong again, I personally am of the opinion that the site is no longer viable. I’ve met with Tim Allen of Environmental Services at the council on several occasions and have come to understand that there are potentially far better solutions which could form an environmental scheme which would benefit and enhance the whole area, not just the pond we were originally concerned for.

The council proposed that a slightly smaller pond (40m x 90m as opposed to 106m x 48m) be built approximately 370m to the East of the pond, and that the area in which it was built, and indeed all the land down to the area adjacent to the concrete pond be incorporated into the Ashby Ville Nature Reserve.

Now to me this is a more sensible solution, it means the pond will be protected, and as the site Tim has identified is about 1ft above the water table, the pond should stay full naturally without the cost, complication and maintenance of pumps, drains, ducts and all the other paraphernalia which would go along with the concrete pond.

However the council’s original proposal once again fell short of our expectations, so we discussed the possibility of carparking and disabled access both of which were added to the scheme.

Next up came the issue of what to do with the concrete pond its self, in early discussions the council had volunteered to dig the mud out and then leave it. We felt that this was totally unacceptable and discussed with the council where topsoil could be obtained from, how it could be levelled and ended up with an agreement that if the scheme were to go ahead then the area would be returned to grass land with the potential for perhaps a wild flower meadow to encourage wildlife, butterflies and the like.

We were still concerned about the longer term viability of the area though, so we discussed with the council the potential of claiming a right of way across the land from the road to the beck, and for this right of way to be properly laid out and paved in a manner which would allow buggies, pushchairs and disabled access down the beck. Having agreed to this, the council suggested that some planting could be put in along side the walk way to protect the privacy of houses there and thus preventing future development backing on to the houses there.

It was also suggested that should the scheme go ahead, the footpath would be extended along the beck, past the proposed site of the pond, all the way to Ashby Ville, and would be of a standard suitable to pushchairs and disability scooters and the like.

The sketch below shows the approximate location of these facilities.

Don't get me wrong here, personally I’m still vehemently angry that the feed pipe was not documented, that it got dug up, the water table was destroyed and that as a result the community lost a great resource. When I helped form the group it was with the objective of restoring the pond.

However, I think its time now to be practical about things. We’ve clearly got the ear of the council, at the moment. We have the environment team very keen to do something to help develop and conserve the green belt in the pond area. We’ve also won what I think are several major concessions on how the proposed scheme may be implemented and we also have the potential to be involved more in the future. Yes I know it will be mundane “boring” things like where the bin for the dog shit goes and maybe even getting out from behind our computers and going litter picking once in a while. However, it’s our community we are talking about developing, improving and protecting it for future generations, and to my mind the scheme on offer is far better in terms of community resources than repairing the concrete pond would be.

The final point I want to address is the potential for house building on the site of the concrete pond. 

Firstly there are some conspiracy theorists who seem (again from the safety of their computer’s) to spout nonsense about how the pond has been intentionally emptied so the council can sell the land. Personally I don’t believe this. I acknowledge that currently the land on which the pond stands has been identified in the Local Development Framework as potential housing stock. This in its self is fairly meaningless. Reader’s may remember the scare stories just before the last election of Quibel Park playing fields about to be built on? Well it’s the same thing. The council have to identify areas where “potential” housing may be developed over the next 25 years. Currently the land is owned by the council, is not up for sale, and has no planning applications on it.

Also on the score of the LDF, those of you who were at the first meeting where Cllr Redfern and Cllr Waltham both attended, may recall that the inclusion of the land in the LDF was discussed, we were told then that if residents did not want the land building on, they could see no reason why it should be.

Now I’m not suggesting for a minute that the group goes about attempting to re-write the LDF, as personally I think sorting out the mess that’s down there now in a meaningful and timely manner has to take precedence. I do believe though that the question of land use and housing development should be looked at and addressed in the fullness of time.

What I think the group needs to do now is work with the council to ensure that an ecologically friendly scheme can be built, and that the mess that is concrete pond in its current state is taken care of properly. As far as where we go from here, well I’d rather put my efforts in to helping design the new scheme and raising funds so that we can incorporate features the community wants, and not wasting my time raising funds for a solicitor to fight a pointless legal battle which will result in nothing getting done.

At the end of the day, I believe you have to pick your battles, we've achieved far more in three months than I ever expected we would, if people want to reject the plan and leave the concrete pond in the state it is, while wasting your money on a 2 to 3 year legal campaign then so be it, but personally I think that route would be misguided.