Home
The controversial cycle track which is to be built on The Sanctuary wildlife reserve faces further opposition from conservation groups

A local campaigner has launched a petition in a final attempt to prevent the construction of a cycle track on The Sanctuary wildlife reserve in Derby.

Sandra Heard, a campaigner against the construction of the cycle track, has set up the petition in an attempt to dissuade the National Lottery from providing funding for the cycle track which will contribute to the destruction of the wildlife reserve.

The petition, which at the time of writing had 510 signatures, is to be sent to the head of corporate responsibility at Camelot, which operates the National Lottery.

Ms Heard spoke to the Derby Telegraph highlighting her incredulity that the council would destroy something they built only ten years ago.

She said: “It’s crazy to have used a lot of public funds to create and manage the reserve and then to say the birds don’t pay very much, now we will use some public money to destroy it.”

The decision to go ahead with the plans for the cycle track came in the face of objection from a large group of ecological campaigners who attended the council meeting on the matter last week.

The council’s argument for the extended Pride Park development, which is to include the now imminent cycle track, is that it will put Derby on the cycling map. They have said that they will provide compensatory land for wildlife at Alvaston Scrubs, three times the size of that lost at the Sanctuary. That plan, however, has not been accepted as viable or appropriate by campaigners.

Following the meeting, which ended unsuccessfully for The Sanctuary local nature reserve, a statement was released via the campaign group’s Facebook page.

Posted on the Hands Off The Sanctuary Bird Reserve at Pride Park, Derby Facebook page, the statement initially calls out the council’s inappropriate offer of wildlife land compensation.

The statement reads: “We pointed out clearly that to offer another 6.6 hectare Local Wildlife Site (Alvaston Scrub) as compensation land went against National Planning Policy and was inappropriate, as it only exported the damage from one high value wildlife site to another, with no net gain. (In fact a 6 hectare biodiversity loss.)”

The statement later questions the ability of the council to make valued judgments as well as clarifying that their battle is not against cyclists, but against the council.

“So it is now with great disappointment that a bird reserve, opened by a Labour MP, is now being trashed just ten years later by a Labour local authority. Today (Saturday) contractors were on site, clearing vegetation.

“Remember, this was a fight against Derby Council, not against cyclists in general, the majority of whom were intelligent enough to have fully understood the issues and priorities here.

“But the fight to save our wildlife goes on.”

Ms Heard’s petition went live after that statement had been released, and in the petition's description, she describes the extent of the damage that the cycle track will cause.

The petition description reads: “The floodlit cycle training and race circuit plus mountain bike area will destroy 20% of the habitat and adversely impact 40% more of the site, which is owned by Derby City Council. The site has an impressive bird list of over 90 species, 56 having Conservation status. It is the only reserve in the city to have shy, ground nesting birds such as skylark, little ringed plover, and lapwing.

“If a cycle race circuit here rides rough-shod over our Reserve it will signal to funding bodies and local councils that Local Nature Reserves are a soft target anywhere else.

“We welcome a race circuit in Derby, but not on this small Reserve. There is suitable, council owned land available just two miles away."

Despite the large opposition, even with the support of high profile names like Chris Packham, the local authority has confirmed that work has begun on clearing the construction site.

A statement from Derby council said: “A number of conditions were attached to the planning approval and, once we have assessed these, a construction plan will be finalised.

“An application for funding has been made to British Cycling.

“The final outcome of this is awaited now that they are aware that the planning application has been approved.”

Elliot joined team road.cc bright eyed, bushy tailed, and straight out of university.

Raised in front of cathode ray tube screens bearing the images of Miguel Indurain and Lance Armstrong, Elliot's always had cycling in his veins.
His balance was found on a Y-framed mountain bike around South London suburbs in the 90s, while his first taste of freedom came when he claimed his father's Giant hybrid as his own at age 16.

When Elliot's not writing for road.cc two wheels are still his favoured mode of transport; these days over the undulating streets of Madrid.

8 comments

Avatar
Simmo72 [608 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Surely another site can be found. I'm against destroying a home for wildlife.

Avatar
fancynancy [78 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Lets not give people another reason to hate cyclists. Find another site for it. I see plenty of concrete eye sores that would benefit from this...

Avatar
graham_f [187 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Am I missing something? Why not build the cycle track on the alternative land offered (and rejected as unsuitable) for the wildlife reserve?

Avatar
Guyz2010 [304 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I concurr entirely with Simmo72. Find another place. I love cycling but the little wildlife areas we have in urban landscapes are way more important.
The reason for it being built there is green field sites are far easier to build on than brownfield sites, the latter the government & local authorities will not sponor cleaning up.
So lets go kill a few ducks.

Avatar
levermonkey [667 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Just had a look at the satellite images for the area.

This has nothing to do with wildlife or cycling/leisure amenities but everything to do with a council land grab.

Once you allow development you change the use. Once you've changed the use it's easier to re-designate the next area, and the next, until the wildlife refuge is unviable and then can be swallowed up by redevelopment.

Sometimes I think I'm too cynical and then councils show me that I'm not cynical enough!

Avatar
farrell [1950 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Guyz2010 wrote:

I concurr entirely with Simmo72. Find another place. I love cycling but the little wildlife areas we have in urban landscapes are way more important.
The reason for it being built there is green field sites are far easier to build on than brownfield sites, the latter the government & local authorities will not sponor cleaning up.
So lets go kill a few ducks.

This is/was a brownfield site.

Avatar
mikefreer [17 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Hmmm this is a tough one.... The addition of a new track would certainly put derby on the cycling map especially with its new velodrome. However I don't think it's right destroying the wildlife area. Surely either the track or a new wildlife area can be built elsewhere so everyone is happy??

Avatar
Guyz2010 [304 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

This is/was a brownfield site.[/quote]

Was I supposed to know that?