Sir – Hugh Jaeger’s principle of sharing is commendable and he is correct when he states that railway line-sides are wildlife corridors (Letters, January 16). But his implication that the “scrub and young trees” which were removed along the railway line next to Port Meadow, were of little environmental importance, is more debatable.


There was prolonged consultation between Chiltern Railways and Natural England as to how the various species of bats in the railway tunnel at Wolvercote could be protected from increased train traffic. But I wonder whether the biggest consequence of the extra line will actually be the loss of the trees and vegetation, which may well have been an important flight path for foraging bats.


I would be very interested to know whether Network Rail was required to undertake an environmental impact assessment before clearing the vegetation, or if, in fact, they did such an assessment?
It seems rather absurd to have spent so much time and effort on investigating the effect of rail-works on bat populations in the tunnel only to then decimate possibly important flight paths with no consideration at all.
Sadly though, the damage is done. Rather than leaving the meadow open to the railway so that passengers can catch a fleeting glimpse, as Hugh Jaeger suggests, I feel it would be heartening if someone/some organisation could take a positive step towards reinstating some form of wildlife corridor.
An added advantage to this would be a visual and sound barrier between the railway line and the meadow. It isn’t necessary to see and hear the trains to share the meadow with them.
Suzanne McIvor, Oxford