Am I Cambridge's Piloti? No. But...

I readily admit that a blog should be updated regularly to justify its space on the Internet, and that the length of each post shouldn't be over-long. Otherwise, it's drifting more into essay and book territory, rather than a diary-style format. And I am not that pretentious. At least, my 9-5 work doesn't allow it.

But I can't help the infrequency of the posts here. The nature (as it were) of this blog is (supposedly!) limited to Environmentalism, Planning and the like, so I shouldn't just be posting short entries about any sort of thing that's crossing my mind. At least, that is the restriction I have forced upon myself here. And besides, (of late) I have tried to open up my less-developed thoughts into Twitter territory, rather than (perhaps more wisely) keeping them to myself - like most people do!

So, if you want to see more regular rants from me, and on a wider scale of topics (albeit not all my interests - I am a jack of all trades after all, and certainly master of none), then check out: https://twitter.com/akazeeox

***

Anyway, back to the subject of this post...

Cambridge, my home city, is the forefront battlefield in the overall 'war' that I fight in, and it significantly influences, tempers and nurtures the regular thoughts and considerations that fuel this blog overall. And the current pressure on housing nationally - both in terms of quality and quantity - is very much in the top 10 of these regular thoughts... a major concern that is omnipresent and likely to forever remain so.

And lo!, with the major issues around housing shortages (which I promise to return to for a later blog), I thought for this blog entry I would separate out one facet of it, and thus at the same time try and address the sin I confessed in the first paragraph above... by posting something shorter!

So, what's the particular problem here?

Well, it's architecture, or rather: "Architecture" and the way both the city council (seemingly) and developers continue to produce sloppy work and, to compound things, make it worse by - basically - lying about their presentations.

By presentations, I mean both the final 'look' of the buildings (whether residential or otherwise) and, before completion, the various publicly presented artists' impressions and (semantics around) the words used on the construction site billboards.

Put simply, the architecture is dull, unimaginative and, sometimes, intrusive. And the promotion of them is borderline lying, basically!

Of the latter, for example, check this billboard text for some housing currently being built:

"Beautifully landscaped grounds and surroundings" it says! Well, "rubbish" I says! [sic]

You might counter immediately by saying that it isn't even finished yet so I shouldn't even be commenting on that aspect ahead of time. But let me tell you:

(a) the "surroundings" are arguably Cambridge's most ugly road, Newmarket Road, which may or may not be gentrified by the help of this development, but otherwise consists of two, dull and new, hotels nearby, a (now closed) car retailer showroom, a furniture shop, some allotments (which are 'green' at least, but not what many would consider attractive landscaping) and other various retail and mixed-use developments. Yes, there is an old mediaeval church opposite the development, but it is a major highlight on an otherwise ugly dual-carriageway.

(b) the use of "beautifully landscaped grounds" is such a throw-away term that it is arguably undermined as soon as you (mis)use it. For it to be genuinely beautiful, we must assume something special is going on (don't you think?): either in terms of mature trees and special plants, or even unique or noteworthy hard landscaping or outdoor 'art'. And I will make a bet right now that none of this shall come to pass. It will have some medium height saplings, hedging and raised flowerbeds with brick surrounds at best. There may be a few modern art elements, such as reflective metal balls, or night-time lighting that provides both 'art' and (to a degree) security. And if there are any lawns or 'wild corners', they will be so insignificant and small-scale that their beauty will be skin deep at best.

So, if you can't lie on these billboard advertisements, should you say anything? Yes, by all means. Just don't use wishy-washy adjectives that are an insult to intelligence.

Not convinced?

How about the adjoining boards?

This board shows some plain, but informative, text (which is good!)... but we also see an artist's impression revealing the (proposed) rear view of the development.

Knowing the site (which is here by the way) I can already tell that it's going to be hard work for the aforementioned beautifully landscaped grounds and surroundings to tuck themselves in, or around the site. But the artificial render itself reveals the truth anyway! There is simply no space on the site for anything, but the building (and its basement) itself. 

And this final board takes the (overpriced) biscuit in my opinion.

The new developments that are springing up all over Cambridge at the moment nearly all claim to be 'prestigious'. Now, I have no doubt their finishing (internally at least) might be quite tidy and expensive... but how many prestigious developments can you have before they then (all) become common? Or perhaps the right antonym is: modest?

And as for 'cultural' - do not make me laugh! It occupies the site of a long-closed (and mainly empty) Greene King Brewery (later owned by 'Eastern Gate Property Ltd'),  and the featureless, window-less facade was long neglected and ignored. Indeed, it was only during a short-lived period where 'high brow' graffiti was sprayed on it where it genuinely entered into everyday public conversation.

But don't be fooled that this is the culture Aspen Build (the developers) are referring to. They are likely laying claim to the wider area, where some remnants of the former, dissolved Barnwell Priory still exist, and some nice period (residential) houses hide away in nearby back roads.

But that would be wrong as, like over-using the word 'prestigious', peppering 'culture' onto anything and everything undermines its power as a useful, applicable word.

Cambridge is a rich, old and famous place no matter where you compare it to (and is therefore considered a very lucky place to live in by many), but let's not lie that the site this particular building occupies is 'cultural'! (And 'PRIME cultural' at that!) If it's simply about History and 'Age' we're talking about, then it's all about context... to some Americans (for example) a house over 100 years old is ancient. But to most Europeans it is not. And in Cambridge, with an established history spanning back beyond even the formation of the University in the 13th century, some (arguably tatty) industrial sheds dating from the 1960s are not worthy of recognition. And if they were, they would probably not have been allowed to be demolished in the first place!

A quick Google search reveals that 'cultural' means 1: relating to the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a society. and also 2: relating to the arts and to intellectual achievements.

Now, just about anything, or practice, or place, etc. can justify formatting within the first category, so we must surely interpret the promoters here as meaning the latter, more exclusive (prestigious!), definition (otherwise, it's even more a throwaway word!). 

Or maybe I'm wrong and one of the developers really does like Banksy?

***

  

Darn it, even this post has gone on too long! 

In Part II of this post, therefore, I will explore some examples of Cambridge's recent (dull as ditchwater) 'nouveau' architecture, and the fact that, despite all the 'exclusivity' and 'prestigious' vocabulary, there's very little reason for the future Pevsners of the world to be getting their pens out to make notes. 

As usual: thanks for reading... and feel free to disagree!

Pil--  Sorry, ZeeOx

Multi-purpose nature reserves? What are they? Aren't they country parks?

Cambridge's Coldham's Common is a designated local nature reserve...

http://lnr.cambridge.gov.uk/nature_reserve/coldhams-common/ 

However, that definition, grandiose and official as it sounds, is actually a bit loose in my opinion... Coldham's Common is more a collection of sports fields, general, grassed open spaces and (genuine) wild borders and corridors... some following field edges, others, the small stream (Coldham's Brook), which forms both the space's northern and eastern boundaries.  It is also bisected by the Cambridge to Ipswich branchline!

The reason I say all that is because, unlike most of Cambridge's other public open spaces and commons, it is heavily used by sports teams, and so (presumably) has a management plan oriented around both the needs of the pitches' maintenance as well as any wildlife in the vicinity.

It is in the news (http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/New-10-year-vision-management-loved-Cambridge/story-28884179-detail/story.html) because a new "ten year Operational Management Plan" has been mooted by the City Council... a plan that accepts the Common as a "multifunctional, natural green space".

I would therefore like to counter that any "multifunctional space", regardless of how green, is not a nature reserve! Otherwise, we could start pretending that some of the better back gardens out there are also full-on nature reserves, even if the trees are used for goalposts, and the lawn for swingball!

As I type this, I have not yet digested all the material available or made a definitive opinion on any of the proposals... so I am therefore just making a quick blog post here as a holder for further comment...

and...

...to point out AGAIN that, if a place like Coldham's Common is a multifunctional, natural green space (and, maybe that's fair enough!)... what a shame the Phase 2 (2014) extension (http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/New-habitats-created-Logans-Meadow-nature-reserve-Cambridge/story-22497281-detail/story.html) to Logan's Meadow (see my blog entry 'Missed Opportunity?' from last year: http://streetnveg.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/missed-opportunity.html) could not have been more radical in scope and pushed forward towards being a 100% guaranteed, fairdinkum, showcase nature reserve!

https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/logans-meadow-local-nature-reserve

Angela Briggs, Planning Officer, apparently said "the nature reserve was a “green lung” between Riverside and the Vie development". I (still) fully agree with that... but I would also add that, if we are going to athropomorphise things correctly, lungs tend to come in pairs... and the other lung in this case has collapsed, and is covered in dog poo.

ZeeOx

It Ain't Rocket Science.

A Happy New Year to you.

Rather than catch up on the (now four!) outstanding blog entries I need to write, I am going to write a quick entry regarding flooding and housing... even if there are numerous blogs and articles out there that cover it better than I ever could!

***

After one of the UK's worst periods of flooding since...well, the last time!... and the mildest December on record, a lot of fuss is being made (again) about the Environment Agency's response (or lack of) to the floods and what could have potentially been done - both before and after.

Yet again, people talk of inadequate defences, un-dredged rivers, saving water voles and subsequent insurance nightmares.

Also, the now standard post-flood debate rages on about how much money the (allegedly once cash-strapped) Majority Conservative Government should be dredging out (as it were) to help versus how much they have done (and then say they are truly doing all they can to help).

Well... I am not going to jump right down the EA's or Conservative's throats this time (or at least for this blog!) and say it is entirely their fault and that they could have done much better all round.

That may well be true (and I note that EA's Chairman, Sir Philip Dilley, has just resigned from his £100,000 a year 3-days-a-week post), but regardless, what I am going to briefly comment on here is just what we should be doing now... in general - for the the future - and why it shouldn't need to be a divisive, political 'thing'.

Before that though, let's establish some facts first. Here are three indisputable (albeit flippantly put) truths...

No. 1 - lots of rain falling in a short period makes rivers and streams rise in height.

No. 2 - if water levels rise higher than flood defences, houses previously protected behind the defences are then in danger.

No. 3 - if you make it easy for water to disperse quickly down hills, water flows more quickly and rises higher if there's plenty of water behind it.

I hope we're agreed? Good. So...

Can we stop the rain falling?

Well, possibly... if we can make it rain, we can likely stop it too... especially if there was a genuine and full #COP21 response to Global Warming. But... for the sake of argument (and to appease the H.A.R.M. conspiracy theorists and right-wing climate change deniers), let's say that we can't really avoid rain falling and a potential flooding scenario being repeated. At least in the short term.

Can we build flood defences higher?

Yes. Just like a Trump Wall, it could be done. But do we want towns and villages protected by walls that are considerably higher than the ground floors of the houses behind them? And how much would that truly cost to do it everywhere? And remember, many of the walls that were engulfed this time around were not old. They were new flood defences. Many weren't even breached or damaged, they were simply topped by waters exceeding the planned/expected (e.g. 100-year) flood prediction levels. I mean, how high should you build a defensive wall before it gets silly?

Can we intercept the water?

Yes we can. A lot of effort (and for relatively low cost) can be made to intercept water before it reaches places of habitation. In other words, from land higher up where the bulk of rain falls and thus flows from.

Indeed, new policy is already being implemented here... where farmland will now be deliberately flooded when waters rise so as to slow up the movement of flood water before it reaches towns and cities. Some farmers may already be kicking up a fuss about it, but they know that the masses (of voters) that live in towns and cities will get priority over protecting crops and sheep... in much the same way that, historically speaking, farms and the needs of farms tend to get prioritised over the needs of wildlife and the habitats they live in. And besides, the farmers have been told that they will be paid subsidies for doing this 'service'.

***

But this is a response to flooding as it is happens of course,. Surely a wiser, cleverer course (as it were) would be to prevent the floods from happening at all? (Or, at least, reduce the floods to manageable levels?)

We've already agreed that we really can't stop the rain from falling and the conditions being 'right' for flooding... so to stop rain from turning urban areas into lakes, we must employ some basic land management techniques upriver... such as blocking up water courses so that water is slowed. Or reforesting land so that soils retain water more efficiently. Or bringing back old peatlands so that they become natural water reserves. Or reducing the numbers of sheep overgrazing on the hills in the first place. And so on and so forth!

Yes, yes, a lot of these things will have a negative impact on the people that work the land (i,e. farmers)... but if we can compensate them for having floodwater on their land when the floods occur, surely we can compensate them for reducing the sheep, reforesting the land and plugging up their once-drying-out bogs to help stop the floods from occurring in the first place? As with most "natural" disasters, I'd happily pay extra taxes to help prevent rather than simply cure.

Just Google some of these concepts... you'll get lots of returns, and lots of critique and balanced opinion too. I therefore do not need not explain any of them (badly) myself here. It's not just George Monbiot's idea you know... numerous people have been telling us about these solutions for decades!

***

So, like most things in Environmental Management, the potential solutions have already been found and though they are nearly always relatively simple in design, the solutions on the ground are rarely straight forward to implement. They often involve multi-tiered strategy and a lot of hard work bringing conflicted parties and interests together.

However, just a few basic changes in approach can still reap an instant award... and, as I said at the beginning of this blog entry, it is not rocket science and I don't want to make this a party political thing.

Slowing and absorbing the water higher up reduces the floods lower down... and building houses away from flood plains on higher ground reduces the pressure and has a bonus in allowing excess water to go where it should, rather than into overland flow.

Although I note the current Prime Minister, David Cameron, is potentially a bit confused about what is a flood plain, if people feel that avoiding genuine flood plains is a pie in the sky luxury we can't afford considering just how many houses we undoubtedly need to build in the future, then I say take a leaf out of The Netherlands' book.

The Dutch have rather a good track record with knowing how to deal with floods(!). So if we don't mind borrowing their heavy duty pumps when we have water to shift, then surely we shouldn't also mind borrowing their ideas and techniques when it comes to innovative ways of building in 'watery' places and anticipating what's needed when the water levels get too high?

Let's not just agree that these are all good ideas though... let's actually start implementing them! If we can't stop building next to rivers... let's at least stop building sub-standard buildings that not only occasionally flood themselves but also help pass on the problem downstream because the water has no other place to go.

Best,
ZeeOx

Reminder 2!

Yet another note to self.

Not only do I have to start writing the outstanding post on dull urban architecture, and then finish the post on Fracking, but I also have two more ideas for post to write...

One on 'invasive' British spiders, and how the Media, in all its forms, seems to be embroiled in a conspiracy of disseminating lies and half-truths along with self-interested pest control firms.

And one on the ever-increasing sterile 'gardens' and open spaces in CBDs, and how a lack of interest, care, or finances is affecting our urban invertebrate populations.

All these are most likely best left to the new year as I am so disorganised right now that I doubt I'll manage one, let all four!

We'll shall see though I guess.

Best,
ZeeOx

Quick post to remind, well, myself really.

I am going to post an entry here soon regarding dull 'urban' architecture... and how developers decide to employ 'modern' styles under the moniker of "exclusive" or "prestige" without care or forethought concerning the reality of the design and/or the subsequent long-term effects or reception.

I'll be using a few examples from my home town of Cambridge, a place where you'd expect a bit more effort to be made!

Watch this space! (Yes, I'm talking to myself... as no-one else is likely to read this! Still... it's good karma to get it off my chest.)

Wildlife versus Sustainable Energy - is there a conflict?

Before I attempt to answer the question posed by this latest Blog entry, I think I need to sketch out a little bit of background first in order to help you understand where I'm coming from!

---

Whenever I hear a generic Conservative politician, barmy Republican Presidential candidate or Climate Change Denier say they find Wind Farms ugly (or even £150,000-a-year BBC Arts Editors for that matter*), I despair.

Not necessarily because they are wrong (I think they ARE wrong by the way, but beauty is subjective and they are entitled to their opinion)...  but more because I believe they think (a) everyone must think the same, (b) that it is simply a given FACT... and (c) that that in someway then helps strengthen an argument they might be in the middle of making as to why we don't need them in general.

I disagree with that side of things more than with any insignificant artistic debate!

Wind Farms undeniably take up space, and by their nature are also very visible, so therefore they are hard to hide. But that does not necessarily mean they "ruin views" or are eyesores as a result. It befuddles me that some people seem to think turbines are ugly, but the rape fields in front of them are acceptable. Or that we must not build these things simply because they devalue the views... but electricity pylons or mobile phone masts are more tolerable because they are arguably indispensable.

I often wonder what such people would have thought of windmills when they first started appearing in the countryside, buildings that people NOW concede can (and do) add value to a landscape.

And so, there is conflict here. People who say they love the countryside taking issue with modern machinery that has to be placed in the more wild areas we have in order to function. They often ask (fence sitting) people things like: "would you want to live underneath a windmill then?" and so on.

But I say that such people have selective memories... or, rather, cherry pick when to attack something and when to keep quiet.

Here's a quick fact to consider then: mobile phones, televisions, washing machines, showers, trains, whatever... need (expendable) energy in order to function. And that energy has to come from either a finite or renewable source. A battery, the mains, whatever. If you want to use electricity, you must sacrifice something along the line to make it.

For example, if people say electric trains are 'cleaner' than diesel ones, they might be right... but we must still not forget that the power that propels said clean trains still has to come from somewhere... i.e. a power station. And if that power station belches out just as much (or more) fumes than the former diesel trains did, have these trains actually been improved?**

But most people don't live near power stations and so "out of sight, out of mind" creeps into the debate. So all we see if we don't think about it, are new electric trains moving along cleanly, without the spewing out of ugly smells, dirty liquids and dangerous fumes of before.

----

So... with all this in mind, I am still going to declare my love for the powering of all things in a renewable fashion... and I think that such people who argue against such an approach, from whatever angle, can be easily countered!

This renewable energy must be produced using natural sources, namely: wind, sun and water.*** Each has its own resulting type of  power "station"... but regardless of their scale or footprint, I would argue that they are in no way worse than the nuclear or fossil fuel power stations they might replace, regardless of whether you don't happen to like how they look, or the noises they make and so on.

BUT...

I believe there is another possible conflict here. And one that is harder to pick sides on or argue for a definitive solution. And this question (finally!) is the one I proposed as the title of this latest Blog entry...

Wildlife versus Sustainable Energy - is there a conflict?

I see this conflict as between those renewable power stations/installations and the wildlife they might even be said to help protect.

Taking each of the three standard renewable energy sources, we have three potential types of power station:-

1. Wind Farms (of turbines)
2. Solar (Power) Farms (of solar panels)
3. Hydro-electric power (either by river damming OR by tidal power)

And, bearing in mind the above example above about the electric trains, and things often being "out of sight and therefore out of mind", this results in three potential (and different) conflicts with 'nature' and the wildlife that it imbues...

These conflicts are usually direct: obvious and on view... rather than being something more subtle that is harder to detect at first, or further down the line before it takes impact.

These are undeniable problems:-

1. Wind Farms kill birds.
2. Solar Power Farms take up a lot of space.
3. (Freshwater) Dams prevent fish movement and (Estuary-based) Dams affect the feeding grounds of wading birds.

I think some pro-renewable energy fans keep quiet about this in just the same way as those people who hate wind farms mentioned above do... and that is a problem.

In order to continue the push towards moving over to renewable sources (or rather, moving AWAY from non-renewable sources), we must acknowledge the problems and consider them in all cases.

I think that, in the grand scheme of things, we may reach a point where we have to admit that renewable/sustainable energy sources are not heavenly solutions... without sin. They are not. They are merely the lesser of two evils.

When we are able to say that, and admit its truth. we may then move on to the, arguably better, task in hand... and that is not using more renewable energy at all - and actually simple using less energy full stop. That is, even, knowing when not to use it AT ALL.

This is a harder test, but it is arguably easier to achieve!

For example, instead of wearing uncomfortable office clothes in summer, managers could consider allowing their staff to wear less and switching off the expensive air conditioning.

Or, in winter, not putting on the heating when putting on a jumper will suffice.

It doesn't matter to some people whether the energy heating their rooms comes from the sun or from coal... as long as it does the job. So, how do we encourage this moral duty without making energy so expensive that it forces peoples' hands?

To be honest, I don't know! I fear it will only happen when we've run out of fossil fuels completely and are in the process of a forced conversion of all energy-hungry equipment to more renewable sources. At this point, people might start thinking that saving energy starts in the home... and not at the power station that you can, or maybe cannot actually see.

Cheers,
ZeeOx

N.B. This is a first draft... I'll tidy it up (typos, interesting links, etc.) in due course!

*I saw Will Gompertz, former media director at the Tate group of museums, and BBC's chief Arts Editor say on Have I got News for You that Wind farms are undeniably ugly. 1. How can someone who thinks Damien Hirst is "one of the greatest exponents of creative thinking today” be listened to? And 2. How can someone be so old-fashioned in their view of something very modern in design and presence? Shouldn't they, rather, be right up his street? (Or hedgerow.)

**Yes, they probably still have, but that's a separate argument!

***I know that wave power, biofuels, biomass, geothermal methods, etc. produce energy too and could also be added to this division, but we'll ignore all these for now too!

Missed Opportunity!

This year represents the second consecutive season for Swifts, an Amber-status summer-visiting bird in the UK, to successfully breed in the (now 4 years-old) Swift Tower on Riverside, north Cambridge.

Designed for 100 nesting pairs, this tower courted controversy when it was built due to its overall cost (during the early months of the post-2010 General Election austerity crisis) and coincidental (or not!) poor timing with the redundancy of Cambridge City Council's only full-time Local Nature Reserves Warden(/Nature Conservation Officer).

Currently used by nesting Starlings in the main (which is actually a Red-status bird!), about half a dozen Swifts are using the tower this summer, stopping miserable cynics like me from saying it was a complete failure. So: now it's here then, and working, let's hope the numbers of nesting birds continue to rise, year-on-year!

(The back of the tower, with Riverside Bridge's long adjoining, pre-river crossing, section behind.)

The tower is currently situated in a field undergoing radical change. In actual fact a flood plain, the field is separated from the adjoining River Cam by a narrow stretch of mature trees, including Weeping willow, and a newly cut 'relief-channel'- style stream (but more on that later). This field (and the neighbouring field beyond the bridge) used to contain sports pitches for the employees' use of the (now long-closed) Pye Electronics' Factory, and today also continue to provide (council-run) football pitches for public use.

Also alongside the field (on its western edge) is a Local Nature Reserve - Logan's Meadow: www.lnr.cambridge.gov.uk/reserves/logans_meadow/default.asp

Logan's Meadow is (quote, from the Council's website) "an oasis for nature within a recently developed area of the city", which is a bit of an odd summary really as the mainly Ash trees there are tall and old, and the surrounding road network and adjoining riverside infrastructure are well established. True, there are relatively new houses both beneath nearby Elizabeth Way and at the flats immediately behind it, but what I mean by odd is that it is not a new wild space for nature in the sense of those often created from scratch for new housing developments.

Indeed, Logan's Meadow has long been an important, albeit oft overlooked, integral part of northern Cambridge's overall biodiversity and its small network of (genuinely) wild spaces, and, due to neglect, abuse and lack of support, evolved into a bit of a lost treasure.*

(A BBQ and loud music in a nature reserve? - As observed from the other side of the river.)

But that is probably about to change...

After some work tidying up and adding new features to the reserve about 10 years ago, Logan's Meadow has now been linked up (by formal path access) with said adjoining field containing the Swift Tower and, at long last, additional work has taken place to try and improve the whole area along this stretch of the river, with wildlife specifically in mind.

You can now cross the fancy-looking Riverside Bridge and easily access both the reserve proper and the new field with the tower, stream and continuously developing and mature wild areas, along with access to open-access gardens to flats immediately to the east of the bridge as well.

(The River Cam passing underneath Riverside (Cycle and Pedestrian) Bridge. Note the gate-able 'cut-off' stream in the foreground.)

So... where am I going with this? Why have I called the Blog Entry "Missed Opportunity!"?

After all, the Swifts are nesting, a wild flower meadow and new reed beds have been planted, and Logan's Meadow has been re-invigorated...

(Shortly after the first meadow ploughing session. Note the dog!)

Well, because I believe Cambridge City Council, for want of a more mature term, have chickened-out of doing something really special here. Also, with what they have done, a few mistakes have been made... and these really undermine the current and future functionality of the place as an 'oasis for nature'.

What could they have done?

So, aside of the initial expense on the Swift Tower, with its artistic rather than practical slant**, and the loss of an excellent custodian of the City's wild places at the same time, the council have only used a small percentage of the available flood plain for the new wild spaces. My argument is that they should have used the WHOLE FIELD!

(Artist's impression? - The new site map for the whole site... doesn't it look good?)

The new stream cutting that will, in time, provide both shelter away from the river for fish fry, other marine animals, plus the birds and mammals that feed on them, could have been extended much further into the field, and have various channels and pools leading off it.

The reeds that will now grow alongside the stream will hardly be the most extensive, and the wild flower meadow will have a width of no more than 10 or so metres. Using the whole field could have created a significant stronghold for riparian wildlife in the city... and perhaps entice back the Otters and Kingfishers which once 'denned' and nested here not so long ago.

(Early doors: the reed and other water-loving plants' sectors.)

If the whole field had been turned over to reedbed, who knows what could have been encouraged in? Imagine Bearded Tits establishing themselves in Cambridge City for example! (Or even a passing Bittern in winter!) There is a site just outside of the city where you can see Bearded Tits occasionally, and Bitterns have also been seen at nearby Milton Country Park too, so I don't think it's within the realms of extreme fantasy personally.

You would also have had a valuable flood relief opportunity, on a part of the river that often floods its banks... and the houses on the opposite side of the river. The field, as it stands, often has open standing pools of water in the winter, and grass that is often so saturated after rain that you wouldn't want to walk on it, let alone engage in sport.

Lastly, imagine the educational potential of such a site, if properly thought out! Perhaps the construction of a couple of hides would have worked wonders, or maybe even just one, tall raised viewing platform or hide at the northern-end of the site that allowed the new (normally) hidden pools and channels (and their residents) to be viewed from a height and at distance... and perhaps even to enable the tower's Swifts to be seen flying past at eye level!

Why did they not do this then?

As far as I know, it was not an economic decision. At least, in terms of using the entire field. The argument apparently, was that the football pitches were still needed as there were no nearby pitches for the local community.

But I am sorry to say: this is poppycock (and I'm sorry for the use of another immature term in this entry!). For starters, the nearest football pitches are literally just 5 minutes walk away at the Chesterton Recreation Ground... and there is also the massive Stourbridge Common to the east for those wanting a more casual kick-about. Yes, there may be dogs there (see my point below)... but that's just an occupational hazard for playing 'free' football anywhere in Cambridge I'm afraid. Stourbridge Common is easily accessible using the new Riverside Bridge... or the Green Dragon Bridge just 5 minutes further along opposite the pub on Water Street.

Just how much organised football is played in this part of Cambridge then? Well, judging by the site's use currently, not that much, let's be honest!

What's wrong now?

So, you might think that a small start is better than none. And I guess you're right, if you just measure things at a macro level...

How is the site currently used then?

In short, it's used for dog walking. Every evening I walk home past the field, which is quite often, I might see some joggers, or maybe even the occasional informal kick-about (and even more rarely, Scouts, Guides, etc. on some sort of formal activity)... but, without a doubt, the biggest use of the place is for people exercising their dogs.

(Moorhen and dog prints.)

Combining walking dogs with observing wildlife is a massive activity in the UK, and I would say it challenges sports fishing in terms of overall numbers of regular participants... so I do know how carefully I have to tread here (pun intended)... But, regardless, this is not the site we should be endorsing this kind of activity! How can a place used primarily for dog walking truly combine with being an 'oasis for nature'?

Most dogs are off the lead as soon as they are led off the adjoining bridge, with its odd out-of-scale wheelchair slope that often leads straight into saturated mud! (see below, with attractive trolley cameo!). This leaves them loose to disturb wildlife straight-away (I'm worried about the nearby Water Vole - see below!), and also: to soil the football pitches.

What is it with this country doubling-up formally marked-out football pitches with places to exercise dogs? Not everyone 'poops and scoops' (and of those who do, I've lost count of the then non-disposed black bags thrown into nearby bushes)... and even those that do do it properly, what is left behind on the grass is not pleasant if you, say, happen to make a fine header in a football game and then land in a place that was recently popped and scooped by hand. Dog-owners are not clinical 'crime scene' cleaners after all!

(A discarded poo-bag... thrown in the water of the new stream's reedbed area.)

I have seen dogs of all descriptions attacking any bird that happens to be on the ground at the site, and also dogs going through the badly maintained wire fence around the new stream and into bushes and tree understories where interesting birds like Blackcap, Grey heron, etc. like to nest or take refuge.

If you're thinking dogs have to exercised somewhere... well, as I've pointed out already for the footballers, Stourbridge Common is nearby, and a large place full of lovely endless fields for standard dog-related activities... and from the north of town, the new bridge gets you there in no time!

On top of this, Logan's Meadow used to have an occupied Otter Den, or Holt, and a well-maintained Kingfisher nesting bank. But not now. I have seen the latter nest there, but not for while... and both the nesting bank and 'secret' Holt have overgrown and seen much neglect of late. I have also yet to see an Otter on the River Cam, despite their increasing numbers nationally after long-years of persecution... and, indeed, increasing numbers of them on the Cam's tributaries not far to the south of the city.

Personally, I think these Otters are put off by boats (rowers!) that use the small and narrow Cam for intense practice all-year-round. The rowing boats are environmentally friendly of course, and quiet too, but the associated noise of on-board - and mic'd-up - coxes and the cycling coaches that accompany them, put an end to the river being quiet until it's gone dark.

Regardless of this then (a rant for another day perhaps!), wouldn't it have been great if the whole 'Pye' field had been turned over to quiet backwaters and reedbeds for the Otters to re-discover and make a new, quieter, home away from the main river course? And also, how about a new, fully set-back, Kingfisher nesting bank too? (Perhaps right opposite a hide like at RSPB Rainham Marshes?)

(The old Kingfisher nesting bank - photo'd in early April, 2015... now even more overgrown!)

***

Will these dogs be better fenced out in time then? Will the Council enforce a policy of dogs on leads through the boardwalk areas as more wildlife shows up? Will Logan's Meadow's improved accessibility mean less abuse (especially at night), rather than more? Maybe!

(Pointless wire fencing.)

I am not going to predict anything about these concerns here but, for once, I will try and look at the glass half-full as the place matures and more wildlife arrive...

The new meadow space has only just been turfed up, but I look forward to it maturing. I am also very much looking forward to seeing how many reeds grow alongside the stream and whether they manage to succeed in enticing in migratory reed specialist warblers like Reed and Sedge warbler to nest.

One thing's certain, I expect the sightings of the endangered Water Vole (Arvicola amphibius) to go up. The adjoining field, with its small, but slightly longer and well-established stream, now has an easily observed full-time resident (along with several rats!) and I hope to see its future broods link up with those that hopefully also discover the new stream, and Logan's Meadows' ponds.

(Water Vole and Brown Rat highways!)

It's true that dogs will occasionally kill Water Voles (if they spot them!)... but I would say their main enemy is the Mink and the lack of suitable habitat.

***

HOWEVER... all that said, my underlying point will always remain though: it was a missed opportunity.

A big one.

Cheers,
ZeeOx

P.S. I welcome responses to this piece. It could be that people will completely disagree with my evaluation and so, for balance, I will happy (sort of!) to see any decently-put arguments posted under the comments... as long as they're not rude!
--------

* Indeed, a recent report has shown its ponds to be a bit of a strong spot for the Smooth newt, Lissotriton vulgaris.

**... and a tower which took ages to entice the birds in through the use of a tape loop that only seemed to play in late summer when the Swifts had already migrated back to Africa (I am assuming it was solar-power triggered?).

Further interesting Swift Tower Links

http://actionforswifts.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/modifications-to-cambridge-swift-tower.html

https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/news/2014/07/11/the-swifts-have-landed

https://www.facebook.com/cambridgenews/posts/10152322106533031

(And yes, that's a Daily Mail link in there at the top of this entry... I am working on my absolutist Lefty bias!)