04/06/2026
Here is an example of pure marketing doublespeak from . Unbelievably, this post was accompanied by two images: a sparrow and a bumblebee.
Looking at the post, you’ll notice that the language is very carefully framed. It talks about:
• reed beds having movement,
• insects, birds and small mammals using habitats,
• wildlife already being present,
• areas being “carefully established to support wildlife”.
None of those statements are necessarily false. The issue is that they don’t address the question that should be asked:
“Compared to what was here before development, what happened to biodiversity?”
Of course there is some wildlife there; there almost always will be. The presence of a sparrow or a bumblebee does not demonstrate ecological success.
What isn’t mentioned is the enormous loss of biodiversity that accompanied the development. Prior to construction, I was recording and photographing a far wider range of birds, insects and other wildlife across this site. Many species were displaced, habitat was lost, and ecological complexity was drastically reduced.
Now residents are being encouraged to celebrate the survival of a handful of the most common and resilient species as though that somehow proves nature is thriving. It doesn’t. The question isn’t whether wildlife exists. The question is whether biodiversity has been maintained, restored, or enhanced compared with the baseline that existed before development.
If developers wish to make claims about supporting nature, they should be willing to do so with real evidence.
