Country diary: For these birds, home is where the food is
One element may be the height of the terrace housing. The buildings are on three floors and the overhanging eaves, where martins locate their mud-cup nests, are beyond the reach of 'tidy-minded' souls worried about droppings below. A more certain factor is that the back of Fairfield is only a house martin's swoop away from what was once the town tip called Hogshaw. Yet in the last half-century it has been redeemed by nature and smothered in sallow and birch woodland. Those two are among our most insect-friendly tree species, and the resulting abundance of invertebrates which not only accounts for the birds' presence here, but determines almost everything about house martins.
They may weigh just 19g and, when perched on the nest lip, remind you of tiny pied mice, but they are global wanderers, travelling from sub-Saharan latitudes to profit from the northern hemisphere's peak insect abundance in April-September. Come autumn, they return south to some largely unknown portion of Africa. Those journeys really put into context those projects for helping martins, or swifts, which address only their nesting places or which work by erecting artificial nests. In a sense, you can't give martins a home, as some conservation groups advertise in their strapline: because their home is the whole world. If you're going to help house martins, then think mainly about the insects of which the birds are made.
That's why Hogshaw, the old tip, needs to become Buxton's newest nature reserve, a place outside human design, a zone set aside for its semi-wild character and for its wildlife, which local people can cherish. Achieving that goal would give Buxton's house martins real hope of a genuine home.
Under the Changing Skies: The Best of the Guardian's Country Diary, 2018-2024 is published by Guardian Faber; order at guardianbookshop.com and get a 15% discount
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
10 hours ago
- BBC News
Gloucester's Clapham Court could be replaced with new family homes
Fresh plans to demolish an 11-storey tower block in Gloucester and replace it with new family homes will "improve living conditions for residents".A planning application by Gloucester City Homes to replace Clapham Court was refused last year, because of concerns about parking and the new plans include a revised layout with fewer homes and extra parking Executive, Guy Stenson, said Clapham Court "no longer meets current housing demand". Clapham Court, in Alvin Street, is Gloucester's only tower plans would see it demolished and replaced by a mix of one, two, three and four-bedroom will also be parking, along with a new pharmacy and play area. "Clapham Court is more than 60 years old," Mr Stenson said."Our aim is to ensure that the new scheme will provide better quality housing and a design that respects the conservation area."Removing the outdated tower block would also enhance the area's appearance and improve living conditions for nearby residents," he added."We are committed to working with the council, residents, and stakeholders to mitigate the concerns raised by some members resulting in the decision to refuse planning permission."We remain dedicated to creating homes that improve lives and the community in Kingsholm." A consultation event at the building gave people the opportunity to find out more about the resident, Simon O'Brien, lived at Clapham Court for more than six years. "I had a brilliant view. I could see the rugby ground so didn't have to buy a ticket. I could watch games from my bedroom," he said."But the roof on the tenth floor was leaking all the time."The plans are alright, I'd like to come back." Tanina Visaranta said she had known the building "all my life". "I had friends here that I visited many times," she added."I will be sad to see it go, because it's so iconic. But I do recognise that some of the materials used to construct it need replacing and I understand the need for family homes," she said."I came to find out more about the timescale, how it's financed and the affect it would have on local schools and GP surgeries."
BBC News
16 hours ago
- BBC News
Felling of Falmouth trees 'legally required' says council
The felling of three lime trees on a Falmouth street was "legally required", the council has Council said due to court proceedings, it had not previously been able to share details of the damage or explain why it was necessary to remove the lime trees from Trelawney said options to retain the trees while preventing further damage had been investigated but utilities under the footpath had made it separate services, including streetlight power cables, water pipes and internet cables, run beneath the footpath between the boundary wall and the trees were tangled with the tree roots, the authority added. The surface of the road and the footway have also been disrupted by roots and kerbs have been removed because they were unsafe, the council said. It said the roots of the trees have caused, and were still causing, serious damage to infrastructure on nearby land and property. Arrangements would be made for them to be removed safely and for four new trees to be planted, added the council. 'No alternative' Portfolio holder for transport Dan Rogerson said the council understood how much the trees meant to the local community, after protests were held to save the trees."It's been frustrating for all of us that we couldn't share more details sooner, but we had to respect the legal process," he said."We value the role trees play in our towns and neighbourhoods - for wildlife, wellbeing, and climate."Mr Rogerson said the council has planted more than 1.6 million trees through the Forest for Cornwall added: "We always look for ways to protect and preserve trees wherever we can. "But in this case, the damage to nearby property, public infrastructure, and essential services leaves us with no safe or viable alternative."
The Guardian
17 hours ago
- The Guardian
Sheep are destroying precious British habitats – and we taxpayers are footing the bill
Britain's uplands are dying. What should be some of the very best places for nature are the absolute worst. Across vast tracts of some of our most beautiful landscapes, life is rapidly ebbing away. Where once there was purple heather, bilberry and buzzing insect life, there are now over-grazed, sheep-infested ecological disaster zones. For a nation of nature lovers, it's a disgrace. One of the very worst areas is the Dartmoor commons. These exemplify everything that is wrong about England's upland management. In a recent Natural England survey of Dartmoor's protected sites, only 26 out of 22,494 hectares (55,583 acres) were found to be in an ecologically favourable condition – that's 0.1%. All the blanket bogs and all the heathland surveyed are in an appalling state, and in many places these once wonderful habitats are in decline. On Dartmoor's high moor, where there should be a diverse blanket bog, we see huge areas dominated by a single species – purple moor-grass. This hardy plant flourishes in degraded conditions, and is a wretched symptom of the historical extraction, erosion and drainage of the underlying peat, which was compounded by excessive burning and year-round grazing in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. This moor grass flourishes at the expense of peat-forming sphagnum mosses – the botanical engineers of healthy bogs. That legacy of intensive farming haunts us with the ghastly spread of impenetrable tussocks of moor grass as far as the rambler can ramble. Meanwhile, livestock – particularly sheep – continue to destroy what little heather moorland is left. This modern-day tragedy of the commons is the result of a land that has been pushed far beyond its ecological limits by the farmers and commoners who have rights over it. But this is also a national scandal – because it is the taxpayer, you and I, who pay for this destruction. Here is a hard, unpopular but simple fact: farming in this place does not make any money. According to a Duchy College Rural Business School report in 2023, each ewe put on the Dartmoor commons loses its owner £16.90. And there are a lot of sheep. The only way these losses are maintained is through public subsidies. From the 1970s to the 1990s, farmers and commoners were paid per head of animal – so the more you grazed, the more cash you got. Some sense prevailed in the late 1990s when the first nature schemes came in and public payments were made to actually reduce the numbers. The problem is that numbers were never reduced enough; the grazing rates ended up being an unscientific compromise. For instance, on the huge Forest of Dartmoor common, the higher-level stewardship scheme allows an average of 0.52 ewes per hectare. In a Natural England 2020 study of 25 years of schemes in the Lake District, the habitat response was universally good only where the stocking rates were below 0.4 ewes per hectare. But here is the greatest scandal. Over the past decade, more than £32m has been paid to Dartmoor commoners through higher-level stewardship schemes – schemes that exist specifically to improve nature on sites that should be protected by law. And guess what? Not one common has improved, and many have got worse. The government's supposed regulator, Natural England, has tried to improve things. Back in 2023 it made a stand, being clear that if it was to agree to schemes being extended, it would need to see changes to those stocking rates. The backlash from the farming fraternity was wild, and a politically driven independent review saw NE make an embarrassing climb-down. Public funds continue to be wasted, and the law is not being enforced. That's why an organisation called Wild Justice has stepped up and secured a judicial review, which is being heard on 15 and 16 July. Our wish is that the Dartmoor Commoners' Council adheres to its legal obligations and acts to reduce stocking rates to ensure the habitat recovers. It's not even as if this land is contributing to food security. Grazing on Dartmoor falls within the least productive 20% of land, which produces less than 3% of the food produced in England. In short, the public is propping up an environmentally destructive, loss-making industry that makes a minimal contribution to the nation's food supply, all while damaging Dartmoor's greatest asset: its nature. It's madness! We are in a planet-threatening climate and nature crisis; we cannot afford not to make positive changes now. We need the government's new land use framework to lend weight to taking this minimally productive land out of any pretence of significant food production, and concentrating instead on its real potential for essential nature restoration. Dartmoor's blanket bogs, for instance, are internationally scarce habitats that, if restored, can store carbon and help regulate the flow of water, thus reducing flood-risk downstream. We need to remove the sheep, restore and rewet the bogs, and then leave them alone. At the very least, the public should not be subsidising sheep grazing on the uplands. There are also some good farmers out there who want to do more to restore nature. If they put nature first, they deserve the public's support to restore our uplands with more suitable animals and more sustainable practices that the local community and our national parks can be proud of. Those farmers who don't want to change should be penalised for causing damage, not rewarded. Their destructive actions should be as illegal as dumping rubbish on protected areas or deliberately setting fires. The time for unjust compromises is over. We have to stop pouring millions into ecological collapse. Dartmoor and our other uplands are failing ecological systems propped up by wasting taxpayers' hard-earned cash. If we truly care about nature, the climate, or even fiscal responsibility, we must stop funding failure and invest in healing: in carbon-binding peat, in wild and wonderful nature, in healthy landscapes that breathe life. Our uplands need a healthy future, and that future starts with change – radical, urgent and unapologetic. Chris Packham is a naturalist, broadcaster and campaigner
