DOCSLIB.ORG

Landscape Appraisal for Cambridge South East

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Landscape Appraisal for Cambridge South East CEG Cambridge South East November 2011 CEG Cambridge South East November 2011 Quality Assurance Site name: Cambridge South East Client name: CEG Type of report: Landscape Appraisal Prepared by: Helen Thompson CMLI MRTPI AIEMA Signed Date _____________________________________________________ Reviewed by: Rob Hopwood BA (Hons) BTP MRTPI Signed _____________________________________________________ Date _____________________________________________________ CEG Cambridge South East November 2011 Table of Contents 1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 1 2 BASELINE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... 6 3 EXPANSION OF SETTLEMENT AT THE URBAN EDGE ................................................. 18 4 CAPACITY OF THE SITE .................................................................................................. 23 5 ANALYSIS OF SENSITIVITY............................................................................................. 29 6 OPPORTUNITIES .............................................................................................................. 32 7 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 36 CEG Cambridge South East November 2011 1 BACKGROUND 1.1 Bidwells has been instructed by Commercial Estates Group Ltd to prepare base line evidence to ascertain the capacity of the landscape to support development to the south east of Cambridge as a pre-requisite to inform the areas which could be developed without detriment to the landscape. 1.2 CEG has an option for development on the land known as Cambridge South East illustrated in Figure 1. The site is currently being promoted for development and a previous submission was made to the East of England Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) Review in 2009 as a strategic location for mixed use development. 1.3 Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) owns land to the south and south east of Cambridge, shown on Figure 1. The Babraham Road Park and Ride site is located within this tract of land. The Park and Ride is considered to be near or at capacity, and it is the aspiration of CCC to extend the Park and Ride facility whilst at the same time helping to meet the requirement for new homes in the area by developing some of the land in CCC's ownership. 1.4 Considering the two areas together allows a strategic vision for the south east quadrant of Cambridge through which considerable environmental improvements to this edge of Cambridge could be achieved to the benefit of local people. With better pedestrian and cycle access as well as the potential for a road link between Fulbourn Road and Cherry Hinton Road/Babraham Road Park and Ride site, by-passing the Cherry Hinton Road junction with Queen Edith's Way and the narrow Limekiln Road, and enhancements to biodiversity and landscape, a number of substantial benefits can be brought forward through strategic development to the south east of Cambridge. 1.5 The area under consideration for the purposes of this report goes beyond the immediate landholdings described above so that the context of the site and surroundings can be assessed. It should also be noted that CCC owns land to the south and south east of Addenbrooke's hospital. Whilst this land is not proposed for further development, it does allow further opportunities for access links to the wider network. The area considered to ascertain the general context approximates to the area depicted in the plans. 1.6 The key issues are: Green Belt; the capacity of the land to accept development; development zones and boundaries; landscape treatments, linkages and integration; and 1 CEG Cambridge South East November 2011 sustainable forms of development. 1.7 The purpose of this study is to: review, understand and set out the context of the site; assess the landscape capacity which refers to the degree to which a particular landscape type can accommodate change without significant effect on character; and show the area of appropriate development which would not be detrimental to the character of the area, and how this could be linked to the City and bring forward a number of benefits. Planning Policy Context 1.8 Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) set out the Government's policies on different aspects of planning. The following are particularly relevant. 1.9 Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1): Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) sets out overarching planning policies for the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. 1.10 Planning Policy Guidance 2 (PPG2): Green Belts. This states the general intentions of the Green Belt Policy, including its contribution to sustainable patterns of urban development and indicates the Green Belt to have five distinct purposes, namely to: check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. 1.11 Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3): Housing (2011) sets out the Government's intentions to ensure the delivery and affordability of housing, including ensuring high standards of design. PPS3 requires that 'deliverable' sites should be identified. The criteria for assessing the deliverability of sites (Paragraph 54) are that sites must be 'available', 'suitable' and 'achievable'. The site is available. This report looks in detail at the landscape issues and landscape capacity of the site and the opportunities which can be brought forward through development and shows the site is suitable to be considered for development. There is reasonable prospect that development could be delivered on this site within a relatively short time span in planning terms. 2 CEG Cambridge South East November 2011 1.12 Planning Policy Guidance 13 (PPG13): Transport (2011). The Government aims to deliver an integrated transport policy between different types of transport with policies for the environment and land use planning to bring about benefits for education, health and wealth creation. The objectives are to promote sustainable transport choices for people, promote accessibility to jobs and reduce the need to travel, especially by car. It proposes that housing should be accommodated principally within existing urban areas and at locations which are highly accessible by public transport, walking and cycling. The site is at the edge of an urban area and is, and will be, highly accessible. In addition, development will bring forward non-vehicular links which will enable access to the wider countryside. 1.13 Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25): Development and Flood Risk (2010). The aims are to ensure that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding. The Environment Agency Flood Map shows that the site lies outside the extent of extreme flood where the chance of flooding events is 0.1% (or 1 in 1000) or less. East of England Plan 1.14 Whilst emerging government policy will require the abolition of Regional Spatial Strategies, some principles in the East of England plan remain valid. 1.15 The approach to housing development in the adopted RSS for the Cambridge Sub-Region is sequential and focused on Cambridge in the following order of preference: In the built up area of Cambridge, subject to considerations of environmental capacity; On the periphery of the built up area of Cambridge on land released from the Green Belt following the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003 and through the Cambridge Local Plan and development plan documents prepared by the local planning authorities; At the new settlement of Northstowe, linked to the guided bus way; and On land within or on the peripheries of the Sub-Region's market towns and within Key Service Centres (or on the peripheries of Key Service Centres, mainly limited to existing communities) where such development would contribute to the social and economic needs of the community. 1.16 The sequential approach is based on sustainability principles, and therefore the second option of housing on the periphery of Cambridge is highly sustainable. 3 CEG Cambridge South East November 2011 1.17 Previous to the RSS, the Regional Planning Guidance (RPG), along with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2003, aimed to provide for sustainable patterns of development to accommodate necessary growth in the Sub-Region with a better balance between employment and housing focused on Cambridge and its surrounding area. The RPG put in place planning policy for the review and release of land from the Green Belt which was followed through by the Structure Plan Policies P9/2b and P9/2c with the detail of Green Belt release and revised boundaries coming through in the Cambridge City Local Plan 2006, with the same principle that development on the edge of Cambridge is highly sustainable. 1.18 The site is currently in the Green Belt. The adopted RSS (paragraph 13.12), states that the extent of the Green Belt may need to be revisited in the review of the RSS. The Cambridgeshire Development Study (2009) has been undertaken
Recommended publications
  • Biodiversity Assessment June 2020

    Biodiversity Assessment June 2020

    North East Cambridge – A Biodiversity Assessment June 2020 MKA ECOLOGY North East Cambridge A Biodiversity Assessment June 2020 1 North East Cambridge – A Biodiversity Assessment June 2020 Site North East Cambridge Contents Project number 85919 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 3 Client name / Address Cambridge City Council 1.1. Aims and objectives ....................................................................................................... 3 1.2. Site description and context........................................................................................... 3 Version 1.3. Legislation and policy .................................................................................................... 4 Date of issue Revisions number 2. NORTH EAST CAMBRIDGE ........................................................................................ 6 004 15 June 2020 Amendments to text and document accessibility 2.1. The geological setting .................................................................................................... 6 2.2. The ecological setting .................................................................................................... 6 003 02 April 2020 Updates regarding terrapins 2.3. The focus area ............................................................................................................. 10 002 20 February 2020 Updates to maps and text throughout 3. CONSTRAINTS ..........................................................................................................
  • Cambridgeshire Archaeology JIGSAW “Piecing Together Cambridgeshire’S Past

    Cambridgeshire Archaeology JIGSAW “Piecing Together Cambridgeshire’S Past

    Cambridgeshire County Council JIGSAW Project Final report 2007 Cambridgeshire Archaeology JIGSAW “piecing together Cambridgeshire’s Past Final Report April 2007 Prepared By The Market Research Group (MRG), Bournemouth University, On Behalf Of Cambridgeshire County Council www.themarketresearchgroup.co.uk Page a Cambridgeshire County Council JIGSAW Project Final report 2007 Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................ 1 1.0: Background .............................................................................. 3 1.1: The Market Research Group (MRG)........................................ 3 1.2: Cambridgeshire County Council .............................................. 4 2.0: Research Aims & Objectives................................................... 6 3.0: Outline Methodology................................................................ 8 3.1: Audience Research - Existing Users ....................................... 8 3.2: Audience Research - Potential Users ...................................... 9 3.3: Audience Research – JIGSAW Focus Groups ...................... 11 4.0: Findings –Cambridgeshire Archaeology users results...... 12 5.0: Findings – Potential users or non user survey ................... 39 6.0: Findings – Castle celebration event (non users) ................ 79 7.0: Findings - Schools – qualitative results............................. 101 8.0: Findings – Focus group results.......................................... 116 8.1: Users and non users focus groups
  • Development Control Policies

    Development Control Policies

    Local Development Framework Development Control Policies Development Plan Document Adopted July 2007 08450 450 500 www.scambs.gov.uk Development Control Policies DPD Incorporating Inspectors’ Binding Changes Local Development Framework Development Control Policies Development Plan Document Adopted July 2007 Published by South Cambridgeshire District Council ISBN: 0906016568 © July 2007 Gareth Jones, BSc. (Hons), MRTPI – Corporate Manager (Planning and Sustainable Communities) DevelopmentDevelopment ControlControl PoliciesPolicies DPDDPD Incorporating Inspectors’A Bindingdopted JulyChanges 2007 CONTENTS Page Chapter 1 Introduction To The South Cambridgeshire LDF 1 Context 2 Community Strategy 3 Relationship With Other Plans and Strategies 4 Cornerstone of Sustainability 4 Community Involvement 5 Chapter 2 Development Principles 7 Objectives 7 Introduction 7 Sustainable Development 8 Design of New Development 10 Development Criteria 13 Infrastructure and New Developments 15 Cumulative Development 16 Construction Methods 17 Development Frameworks 19 Chapter 3 Green Belt 21 Objectives 21 Development in the Green Belt 21 Mitigating the Impact of Development in the Green Belt 22 Mitigating the Impact of Development Adjoining the Green Belt 23 Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt 23 Recreation in the Green Belt 25 Chapter 4 Housing 27 Objectives 27 Housing Density 27 Housing Mix 28 Affordable Housing 30 Housing in the Countryside 34 July 2007 Development Control Policies DPD i Development Control Policies DPD Adopted July 2007 Chapter 5 Economy
  • Annual Monitoring Report 2015-2016

    Annual Monitoring Report 2015-2016

    Annual Monitoring Report December 2016 1 April 2015 – 31 March 2016 Cambridge City Council Annual Monitoring Report 2016 December 2016 List of Abbreviations List of Abbreviations Definition AAP Area Action Plan AMR Annual Monitoring Report ASHE Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings BfL Building for Life BfL12 Building for Life 12 BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method CATS Cambridge Area Transport Strategy CCC Cambridge City Council CHP Combined Heat & Power CIL Community Infrastructure Levy CiWs City Wildlife Site CLG Department for Communities and Local Government CPERC Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Environmental Records Centre CSR Cambridge Sub-Region DPD Development Plan Document dph Dwellings Per Hectare DPSSC Development Plan Sub Scrutiny Committee DWP Department of Work and Pensions EEDA East of England Development Agency EERA East of England Regional Assembly ELR Employment Land Review EU European Union GC3 Greater Cambridge Cycle City Project GCP Greater Cambridge Partnership GO-EAST The Government Office for the East of England Grade I Listed Buildings of exceptional interest, sometimes considered to be internationally important. Grade II Listing Buildings that are nationally important and are of special interest. Grade II* Listed Buildings that are particularly important and of more than special interest. ha Hectares HESA Higher Education Statistics Agency HMO Housing in Multiple Occupation HRA Habitats Regulation Assessment HSSA Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix IMD Index of Multiple Deprivation IPPG Informal Planning Policy Guidance JDCC Joint Development Control Committee JSGIC Joint Strategic Growth Implementation Committee JTF Joint Transport Forum LDF Local Development Framework LDS Local Development Scheme Page | i List of Abbreviations Definition LEP Local Enterprise Partnership LNR Local Nature Reserve Local Plan Review The process of the creation of the Local Plan 2014, which will replace the Cambridge Local Plan 2006, once adopted.
  • Stage 2 Coarse Screening – Report

    Stage 2 Coarse Screening – Report

    Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation Stage 2 - Coarse Screening Report 1 July 2020 Page intentionally blank for pagination when printed Mott MacDonald 22 Station Road Cambridge CB1 2JD United Kingdom T +44 (0)1223 463500 mottmac.com Anglian Water Services Ltd Lancaster House Ermine Business Park Cambridge Waste Water Lancaster Way Huntingdon Treatment Plant Relocation PE29 6XU Stage 2 - Coarse Screening Report 1 July 2020 Mott MacDonald Limited. Registered in England and Wales no. 1243967. Registered office: Mott MacDonald House, 8-10 Sydenham Road, Croydon CR0 2EE, United Kingdom Page intentionally blank for pagination when printed Mott MacDonald | Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation Stage 2 - Coarse Screening Report Document reference: 409071 | 03 | C.4 Information class: Standard This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above- captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose. We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties. This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it. This r epo rt h as b een pre par ed s olely fo r us e by the par ty which co mmissio ned i t (t he ‘Clien t’) in conn ectio n with t he c aptio ned pr oject.
  • Reading Landscapes in Medieval British Romance

    Reading Landscapes in Medieval British Romance

    READING LANDSCAPES IN MEDIEVAL BRITISH ROMANCE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Andrew Murray Richmond, M. Phil. Graduate Program in English The Ohio State University 2015 Dissertation Committee: Dr. Lisa J. Kiser, Adviser Dr. Richard Firth Green Dr. Ethan Knapp Dr. Karen Winstead Copyright by Andrew Murray Richmond 2015 ABSTRACT My dissertation establishes a new framework with which to interpret the textual landscapes and ecological details that permeate late-medieval British romances from the period of c.1300 – c. 1500, focusing on the ways in which such landscapes reflect the diverse experiences of medieval readers and writers. In particular, I identify and explain fourteenth- and fifteenth-century English and Scottish conceptions of the relationships between literary worlds and “real-world” locations. In my first section, I analyze the role of topography and the management of natural resources in constructing a sense of community in Sir Isumbras, William of Palerne, and Havelok the Dane, and explain how abandoned or ravaged agricultural landscapes in Sir Degrevant and the Tale of Gamelyn betray anxieties about the lack of human control over the English landscape in the wake of population decline caused by civil war, the Black Death, and the Little Ice Age. My next section examines seashores and waterscapes in Sir Amadace, Emaré, Sir Eglamour of Artois, the Awntyrs off Arthure, and the Constance romances of Chaucer and Gower. Specifically, I explain how a number of romances present the seaside as a simultaneously inviting and threatening space whose multifaceted nature as a geographical, political, and social boundary embodies the complex range of meanings embedded in the Middle English concept of “play” – a word that these texts often link with the seashore.
  • Landscape History and Archaeology 2019-2020

    Landscape History and Archaeology 2019-2020

    Undergraduate Certificate in the Making of the English Landscape: Landscape History and Archaeology 2019-2020 Course code: 1920CCR106 COURSE GUIDE University of Cambridge Institute of Continuing Education, Madingley Hall, Cambridge, CB23 8AQ Tel 01223 746222 www.ice.cam.ac.uk Welcome to the Undergraduate Certificate in The Making of the English Landscape: Landscape History and Archaeology, a University of Cambridge award offered by the Institute of Continuing Education (ICE). The Certificate is taught and awarded at FHEQ level 4 (i.e. first-year undergraduate level) and attracts 60 credits. The award is completed in one academic year. For further information about academic credit please see our website: www.ice.cam.ac.uk/studying- with-us/information-for-students/qualifications-that-we-offer The course offers three termly units and a syllabus and reading and resource list for each of these units are included in this course guide. The course aims: to demonstrate a broad understanding of the key concepts and themes underlying the development of the English landscape, a distinctively interdisciplinary topic that draws on archaeology together with historical evidence, historical and physical geography, historical ecology, and ecclesiastical and vernacular architecture; to demonstrate a critical approach to the selection and evaluation of a core range of sources for primary evidence, and the choice of appropriate methods for their analysis and interpretation to begin to explain the history of the English landscape; to begin to formulate
  • Cam Valley Forum Response to the Greater Cambridge Online Survey on Green Infrastructure

    Cam Valley Forum Response to the Greater Cambridge Online Survey on Green Infrastructure

    The Cam Valley Forum is an Dr Alan Woods unincorporated association, Hon. Secretary registered with HMRC as a Cam Valley Forum charity. [email protected] [email protected] https://camvalleyforum.uk CAM VALLEY FORUM RESPONSE TO THE GREATER CAMBRIDGE ONLINE SURVEY ON GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE This paper responds to the invitation from the Greater Cambridge Green Infrastructure Opportunity Mapping project to comment on assets, weaknesses and gaps in the green infrastructure network in Greater Cambridge, and to share priorities. Further information on the project is available on the website https://greater-cambridge-consultation-hub-luc.hub.arcgis.com/. 1. Which green infrastructure sites are thriving and provide the most value to people and wildlife in Greater Cambridge? It is difficult to respond without knowing what is meant by ‘thriving’ and ‘value’. Sites can be well- used while being degraded ecologically (e.g. Jesus Green has little ecological value as a grassland habitat). Sites can be less well-used (low ‘utility’ value) but provide valuable wildlife habitats (high ‘existence’ value). Paradise, Sheeps Green and Coe Fen are exemplars of good practice. These areas have quite high biodiversity, very capable management and combine traditional wetland pasture management by cattle with provision of open recreational space. The Rush stream also provides a very valuable site for wildlife in a near urban setting. Urban wildlife (in Cambridge) is substantially more biodiverse than in the surrounding countryside, especially where there are major gardens with good tree and shrub cover. 2. Which green infrastructure sites need intervention to enable them to provide more value to people and wildlife in Greater Cambridge? See question 4 3.
  • Introducing T. C. Lethbridge

    Introducing T. C. Lethbridge

    begin but he showed up just in time. I was also nervous about my paper which came first. In it I attacked the inappropriate application to African archaeology of archaeological terminology deriving from Europe. I was therefore particularly grateful to my former Cambridge student, Susan McIntosh, when she immediately jumped into the discussion, as soon as I had finished speaking, with general approval and with a comparison I had never thought of! She noted that it would have been a disaster for North American archaeology if archaeologists there had tried to force European terminology onto it. At the final plenary session of the Southampton meeting, a new organisation was born, the World Archaeological Congress, and I served for a number of years on its Executive Committee. At the UISPP congress in Mainz the next year there was a public debate on the issue of whether the Southampton congress had violated the sacred principle of academic freedom, with Peter and myself the chief speakers on one side, and, sadly, my old friend Jacques Nenquin on the other and another Africanist colleague, Philip Tobias speaking against me from the audience. There remained the publication of the papers from the African Prehistory section of the Southampton congress which I had undertaken to be responsible for and to edit for the series of twenty volumes of post-congress papers that it had been envisaged the Congress would generate. From the start, Peter had been insistent that the congress should result in a series of books which would be of real scientific and scholarly value and he remained the dynamic general editor of the series.
  • Appendix 2: Abbreviations Table 2.1: Abbreviations and Descriptions Used in This Thesis

    Appendix 2: Abbreviations Table 2.1: Abbreviations and Descriptions Used in This Thesis

    Appendix 2: Abbreviations Table 2.1: Abbreviations and descriptions used in this thesis Abbreviation Description AMH Anatomically Modern Humans AH Archaic Homo Sapiens EBA Early Bronze Age MBA Middle Bronze Age LBA Late Bronze Age EIA Early Iron Age MIA Middle Iron Age LIA Late Iron Age BP Before Present BCE Before Common Era CE Common Era MFM Masticatory Functinoal Hypothesis PME Probable Mutation Effect BMU Bone Multicellular Units MSM’s Muscular Skeletal Markers DISH Diffuse Idiopathic Skeletal Hyperostosis GMM Geometric Morphometrics TMJ Temporomandibular Joint CSA Cross Sectional Area CVA Canonical Variate Analysis PCA Principal Comonent Analysis GPA Generalised Procrustes Analysis ME Masticatory Efficiency MP Masticatory Performance MBF Maximum Bite Force AMTL Antemotem Tooth Loss PC Principal Components CV Canonical Variate WHR Waist to Hip Ratio 493 Abbreviation Description Bh Body Height Rh Ramus Height L1 Length 1 L2 Length 2 ConB Condylar Breadth CorB Coronoid Breadth N(F/M) Neolithic females/males IB(F/M Bronze and Iron Age females/males R(F/M) Roman females/males AS(F/M) Anglo-Saxons females/males M(F/M) Medieval females/males PM(F/M) Post-Medieval females/males 494 Appendix 3: Skeletal Samples The skeletal samples employed for this study were accessed from a number of universities, archaeological collections and museums. For the purposes of providing background information on these individuals this section will briefly discuss the excavation reports and relevant previously published research on these sites where they were available. 3.1 Fishergate House, York (Medieval) Excavation was conducted by the Field Archaeology Specialists Ltd (FAS) on the grounds of Fishergate House in York between August 2000 and March 2001.
  • South Cambridgeshire District Council Contaminated Land Strategy

    South Cambridgeshire District Council Contaminated Land Strategy

    South Cambridgeshire District Council Contaminated Land Strategy July 2001 Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 2. Background ................................................................................................................. 2 3. Corporate Objectives of South Cambridgeshire District Council ................................. 3 4. Regulatory Context ..................................................................................................... 4 4.1 Contaminated Land regime ......................................................................................... 4 4.2 Other Enforcement Regimes ....................................................................................... 4 4.2.1 Planning and Development Control ........................................................................ 4 4.2.2 Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) and Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) ..... 5 4.2.3 Waste Management Licensing ................................................................................ 5 4.2.4 Statutory Nuisance .................................................................................................. 5 4.2.5 Water Resources Act 1991 ..................................................................................... 5 4.2.6 Radioactivity ........................................................................................................... 6 4.2.7 Food Safety ...........................................................................................................
  • No 43 2001 Plate 1 the Central Reclamation Depot at Chesterton Junction, Cambridge, Circa 1958

    No 43 2001 Plate 1 the Central Reclamation Depot at Chesterton Junction, Cambridge, Circa 1958

    Nature in Cambridgeshir~ No 43 2001 Plate 1 The Central Reclamation Depot at Chesterton Junction, Cambridge, circa 1958. On the left is the plant for producing long-welded rails. Taken from the position of the triangle on Fig 1 (page 9) Photo: British Rail Contents Page Editorial . 2 The Wild Juniper, juniperus communis, in Cambridgeshire Part 1 Max Walters 2 The Milton-Chesterton Sidings Part 1. The origins as a ballast pit and bird habitat Graham Easy 7 Part 2. The sidings in the railway years Henry Tribe 8 Part 3 The plant-life of the sidings Graham Easy 11 Part 4 The butterflies of the sidings Julia Napier 12 A Rookery Update Graham Easy 14 Records and Illustrations of the Desmid Alga Closterium from water bodies around Cambridge Hilary Belcher & Erica Swale 17 Web-building Caterpillars on an Ornamental Shrub Erica Swale 23 No Traffic, No Maintenance some effects on Washpit Lane, Girton. Hilary Belcher & Erica Swale 24 Grange Fatm - The RSPB's arable farm in Cambridgeshire Roger Buisson & Will Kirby 28 Dwarf Stonewort reappears at Wicken Fen C J Cadbury 34 Rainfall in Cambridgeshire Tim Sparks & David Roy 36 BOOK REVIEWS Laurie Friday, Philip Oswald & Henry Arnold 45 Vascular Plant records Gigi Crompton & Chris Preston 51 Bryophyte records Chris Preston & Mark Hill 55 The Cam Valley Forum 59 Cambridgeshire Flora Records since 1538, wu•w.mnlg.comlgc Gigi Crompton 60 OBITUARIES Arthur Maitland Emmet David Wilson 60 William Thomas Stearn Martin Walters 64 Derek Wells Philip Oswald 65 Weather Report john W Clarke 68 Cover photograph: Webs formed by the Spindle Ennine moth caterpillars (see p23) George Thorpe Editorial Board: Dr S.M.