Lambrok Stream by numbers

David Feather’s post yesterday highlighted the problems that planning application 20/00379/OUT will create for Lambrok Stream. The access road for the planned development will have to cross the stream and, no matter how many changes are made to the design of the bridge, we do not see how that can be done without damage to the Lambrok’s biodiversity.

Here are some relevant numbers:

  • 8.2 — The length in kilometres of the Lambrok from its source to its confluence with the River Biss.
  • 747 The length in metres of the stretch of the stream that runs through the park from Lambrok Close to Whiterow Bridge.
  • 621 — The length in metres of the access road proposed by Waddeton Park Ltd for the planned development at Southwick Court.

1. Otters; 2. water vole – 2 protected species dependent on Lambrok Stream.

  • 2 — The number of protected species of mammal that either live by or hunt in the Lambrok.
  • 13 — the number of species of bats that use the Lambrok as a safe flight corridor to their hunting grounds in Southwick Country Park Nature Reserve.
  • 15 — The number of species of Odonata identified on the Lambrok, downstream of Southwick. Remember that, in southern England, it only takes an assemblage of 15 -17 Odonata species for an area to meet the criteria for a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

3. Scarce chaser; 4. southern hawker

  • GB109053021800 ID The Lambrok’s Water Body Identity Number
  • 1713.709 — The whole of the Lambrok catchment area in hectares.
  • 3 — The number of planning applications submitted to the council which will affect Lambrok Stream’s biota: planning application 20/00379/OUT for 180 houses at Southwick Court; planning application 20/09659/FUL for 50 houses in the field at Upper Studley and planning application 18/10035/OUT to build 60 houses in the field between the reserve and Church Lane.

5. Bulrushes in the stream; 6. the Lambrok at Southwick Court

6 thoughts on “

  1. Why oh why did the Inquiry Inspector agree to this WHSAP site going ahead? It has so many problems that seem to be so very difficult to resolve. The studies must be costing the developer a fortune, but I suppose it is good business for their consultants.

    1. The Council came to that inquiry armed with a posh London law firm. On the other side was you, me and Graham Hill. I think the inspector probably did his best for us.

  2. If you hold them up long enough perhaps they will change their minds. They have missed out on the stamp duty holiday and the number of houses on the market has fallen by half. COVID is keeping the economy on edge and the protesters are getting more organised the longer it goes on. At some stage they must wonder if it’s worth the trouble.

Comments are closed.

Create a website or blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: