Letters to the Editors
Proposed Bridge over Reach Lode.
Dear Editors
I would like to take this opportunity to address some of the points raised in
the report of a special meeting of the parish council, in the last edition of
the Swaffham Crier by John Chalmers, "Bridge over Reach Lode" .
In Mr Chalmers opening paragraph he states, ... "but no one was available from the applicants to answer questions or promote their case" this seems a strange statement to make when no one from the National Trust was invited or even informed a meeting was actually taking place! Had we been asked to attend such an event we would have happily answered any questions the parish may have had and helped to clear up some of the points raised in the report.
The report then goes on to outline the purpose and description of the bridge, so it may be useful to provide some further and more accurate information. The bridge is intended to be part of the Wicken Fen Spine Route, a partnership project between the National Trust, Sustrans, Cambridgeshire County Council, the Environment Agency and Cambridgeshire Horizons. The bridge and cycleway are being funded by Cambridgeshire Horizons and Sustrans through their Connect2 programme. The Connect2 programme is being funded through the BIG Lottery and was voted for by the public on national television in 2007. Connect2 will enable 79 community projects, of which this is one, to create new sustainable transport links such as cycle ways which link previously separated communities. In this case the spine route is intended to complete the missing link in National Cycle Route 11. This would eventually create a new and safe cycle route through this part of the Fens linking up Cambridge in the South to Ely and Kings Lynn in the North.
The bridge has been carefully designed over the last 18 months to fulfil the needs of all its intended users as well as fit into its environment; hopefully this can be appreciated from the attached impression.
The main issues affecting the design are the need to retain navigation of the Lode which requires 3m headroom between the water and the bottom of the bridge, the requirements of equestrian users which dictates a 1.8m high parapet and the DDA (Disability Discrimination Act) which outlines the gradient of the approach ramps as 1 in 20. The other factors influencing the design has been the height of the existing Lode banks and the need to ensure their stability, on the this last point the Environment Agency who are responsible for the Lodes require the bridge to over fly the whole lode system so their can be no impact on the Lode banks.
The bridge is not designed for traffic and would be bollarded at either end to prevent vehicle access. Even taking on board all these issues the bridge is far smaller than the one described by Mr Chalmers; the bottom of the bridge is 2.10m above the Lode bank so there is no interference with the existing footpaths and the bridge itself a further 2m on top of that, significantly lower than the 20ft described. Similarly the total length of the bridge and ramps is 188m not the quarter of a mile outlined in Mr Chalmers report.
The need for this route has identified by many organisations who are working to create new sustainable transport options as well as providing new opportunities for improved local recreation and investment in tourism in the Fens. The desire for it locally has certainly been expressed at many of the community events the Trust has attended this year.
The bridge has been designed by reputable qualified engineers and scrutinised by the National Trusts own Architectural Panel so we have confidence in both the stability of the design and the costings. Some of the design details are still being finalised such as the specification of the railings and the finish and the Trust are happy to take on board alternative suggestions if local people don't like a galvanised finish. It is intended that the top rails will be finished in oak.
I believe that far from being "a nonsense" this bridge would provide great benefit to local people and visitors to the area, greatly enhancing the rights of way system and opening up this wonderful area of the Fens to all users.
More Fen Vision
Dear Editors,
I have been recently been under attack in several of our local newspapers. It
appears that some people still can't understand the concerns of those of us
who live in the Burwell, Reach and Swaffham Prior area regarding the National
Trust's socalled 'Wicken Vision' and how it will, if implemented,
impinge on all of our lives. I am deeply worried by what we can already see.
The fine food-producing farm land that the Trust has already taken over has
become a jungle of ragwort, thistles and other weeds. The cattle that they are
using to keep the rubbish in check are clearly incapable of doing so and the
Trust has had to resort to tractors and cutters to clear a way through. A visit
to their 'Tubney Fen' below Reach or a drive down Hightown Drove will
show any sceptics that I am right and that the Trust is in a big muddle. There
is more of concern to Burwell down Hightown Drove, too, and I have drawn this
to the attention of people higher up than I.
There were some who said that the so-called 'Wicken Vision' would never come to pass. Well, it is coming to pass, and it is now to be seen - water and weeds and all.
Attached is a picture of what is now very much at risk: the production of Fen food that our people and our country are increasingly going to depend upon. This must not be thrown away so lightly and without more thought.
If your readers would like to assist with our resistance to the scheme and are connected to the internet, please go to our on-line 'SaveOurFens' E-Petition at - http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/SaveOurFens/
The picture is of Mr David Watts, of Percy Watts & Sons, in a field of Agria potatoes in Swaffham Prior Fen. This field is expected to yield around 20 tonnes of potatoes per acre.
"One of the most useful varieties available, Agria potatoes have an outstanding flavour and texture. Although recommended for chipping, roasting and mashing it is exceptionally good as an all round potato."
Lost Kite
Dear Editors,
I've lost my kite! On Sunday morning 23rd August I briefly flew my kite after walking the dog. The kite got stuck in a tree! I had to get back in a hurry to go and see my son in hospital and wasn't able to get back to the tree until late afternoon - by which time it had vanished!
If any one reading The Crier saved it could they give me a ring and I will come and collect it, please. Thanks.
Those Birds Again
Dear Editors,
My last word, I hope, on this subject. Birdies are nice. I love all of them. But I admit I do like songbirds more than magpies because they and the other corvidae are aggressive and predatory and growing in numbers to such an extent that you can see it, while many of the smaller birds are declining at almost freefall rate (eg tree sparrows) but they are so small that you pretty well don't notice - two statements the RSPB would scarcely attempt to deny. Two plus two.
And it's a key sentence in Caroline's quote last issue which is most telling - The British Trust for Ornithology found no evidence that increased numbers of magpies have caused declines...etc. The key phrase is 'found no evidence'. This phrase doesn't mean IT IS NOT HAPPENING but WE CAN'T SEE IT HAPPENING SO WE CAN'T SAY IT IS, AND WE CAN'T SAY IT ISN'T. However, in politics especially it is more often used to say WHEN WE SAY THIS WE CAN SOUND INFORMED AND GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT IT'S NOT HAPPENING AT ALL AND THIS WAY NOBODY CAN CALL US LIARS LATER . I'm not accusing the BTO of being economical with the truth - they are a reputable lot as far as I can tell. But you get my drift. What the BTO does not deny is that there are severe declines in many of our farmland species - it's in Caroline's quote. There is equally no evidence for Caroline's assertion that 'it seems that the magpie only consumes the spares'. That's as much surmise as any other unsupported opinion, and I have never seen any evidence that there are self-regulatory predators who maintain numbers in balance. I wish she was right but I don't believe she is. The numbers continue to stack the wrong way for her to be right. But see how powerful that phrase 'I have never seen any evidence'is? It makes me sound like a judge summing up. But all it is is my opinion.
The BTO could find no (anti) correlation between magpie and song-bird density variation from place to place, as would be expected if magpies were affecting songbirds, and despite having trawled through many years'records to find one. Mark is quite right that "there is no scientific evidence for... " is a phrase also used when nobody's bothered to look for any. Ed