I keep forgetting how extensive Port Meadow and Wolvercote Common are. Wikipedia indicates that the former covers 300 acres (120 ha) whereas the latter is only 50 ha - depending on the exact boundaries chosen, which are continually in dispute. Visitors can quite easily stand in the middle of this vast green space and find almost everyone else is so far away they look the size of insects.

The river banks on both sides of the Thames by Port Meadow are entirely natural unlike those further downstream in the city. They provide an invaluable yardstick of the scale of the changes that have taken place to the riverbanks elsewhere in the city - usually having to be reinforced by sandbags and cement.

Over the last few years there seems to have been a significant increase in the number of canal boats by Iffley nature reserve and the Oxford canal by Hythe Bridge Street. Bu it is doubtful they will be strung out along Port Meadow’s riverbanks because so many other groups of people use them.

Port Meadow is on a similar scale to Shotover Countryside Park (when it includes Brasenose Woods and, more recently, the half dozen farmers’ fields north of the Horspath road).

These are two huge green assets to the city and yet there are those who might object to such a comparison because they regard Port Meadow (in the northern part of Oxford) as much more archeologically, historically, culturally, and mythologically, significant than Shotover (in the east of the city).

Perhaps the Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dodgson’s ‘Alice in Wonderland’ is much more popular than Tolkein and CS Lewis both of whom knew Shotover well.

Or perhaps Shotover should just be compared, like for like, e.g. with Wytham Woods?

Port Meadow is undoubtedly an incredible sight so close to Oxford city centre. There are few other modern cities which have such a vast amount of greenery reaching almost into the city centre.

Aesthetically, Port Meadow provides fantastic views of the Thames valley and surrounding hills from Beckley to Shotover, Hinksey and Wytham.

The question arises as to why this meadow hasn’t been developed. Is it because Oxford is on a flood plain which means building on it would be self defeating and financially ruinous? Or is it because the legendary King Alfred the Great supposedly gave those who defended the city from Danish invaders, the right to graze their animals on the meadow for free and in perpetuity? If the latter, could these people have been the city’s first environmentalists?

The meadows’ reputation has also been enhanced because over the last 4,00 years, it has supposedly never been ploughed. But this ‘fact’ suggests that commoners controlled the land for a long time before King Alfred gave them title to it.

The grazing of Animals on the meadow has undoubtedly ensured the area remains a meadow. The four legged lawn mowers ensure that no trees can intrude on the meadow. It is easy to appreciate what Port Meadow would look like if grazing was stopped by looking at Burgess Field on its eastern flank .

Port Meadow exists in the gap between the Thames in the west and the railway lines to the east. Burgess Field, which used to be the city’s rubbish dump, has been ecologically restored. But, no matter how beautiful Burgess wood becomes it will always be (like Shotover) the poor relation to the majestic, iconic, Port Meadow. But it’s Burgess (and Shotover) which is combatting climate change whilst Port Meadow does next to nothing.