 |
Heathland MADNESS - the juggernaut of nature conservation |
|
Last updated 5 March 2010 Articles about objections to heathland restoration: The defence of woodland – Forest Neighbours and Gib Torr, Jan 2010 NEW Cutting down trees to restore open habitats – only now a policy emerges, 26 March 2009
High price for
heath - Loxley and Wadsley Commons, Mar 2008 Swineholes Wood - 'Too many trees being cut down', Feb 2008 Take three woodland wildflowers, Feb 2008
Nature
grooming - the killing of wildness in nature, Apr 2007
ADDENDUM -
Changing face of Ashdown
Forest, 14 May Four strands of barbed wire - a Blacka Moor update, Mar 2007 Blacka Moor in Peril from the Conservation Professionals, Dec 2005 |
The 10th National Heathland Conference took place in York in September 2008 (1). While I haven’t been to any of the preceding nine conferences, it would be a safe bet from looking at this years program that rarely is the rightness of the restoration of heathland ever an issue, nor would much time be spent puzzling why the public often disagree with heathland restoration, even though there is plenty of evidence in the public domain to suggest that this disagreement is widespread. Objections often refer to the lack of sustainability; the lack of consultation, or the fait accompli of consultation on a predetermined management plan; and more often than not, the heavy handed management itself. The usual response from conservation professionals is to dismiss this as a lack of understanding, or to besmirch objectors by inferring that they are new incomers or just affluent, or both. It seems to me that a fundamental issue is at stake here. Its not just about the fact that conservation professionals get to have their choice of what nature is conserved, it is that many other people have a different perception and set of values about landscapes – and yet they are routinely traduced. Over the last few years, I have documented individual cases of objections to heathland restoration as they came to light, sometimes being contacted with information by local action groups seeking support, and a few welcoming that I had squarely covered their concerns. The more you look, the more examples there are (and the more that have been sent to me) and it would not be an easy task to document them all in such detail, even if I had the stomach for it. Just sometimes you wish journalists would recognise themselves the extent of the disagreement, and begin to ask the hard questions as to why it is happening. In that absence, I offer here a compilation that gives a measure of the contention, and shows the repeated pattern that reveals just what those hard questions are. As new examples come to light, they also will be added, and perhaps in more detail here than those that have been covered in articles elsewhere. A route map of protest
One of the earliest
objections I can find relates to the proposal in 1996 by Surrey County
Council to permanently fence the perimeter of the North side of
Chobham Common for the purpose of
"conservation grazing" on the open heathland. A Commons Interest Committee
was formed locally to protest the proposal, forcing it to a public inquiry
in February 1998 (2). The decision by the Planning Inspector to refuse
permission was accepted by the Secretary of State, but not surprisingly
English Nature was (3):
In 2002, Surrey County
Council handed over management of the common to Surrey Wildlife Trust. It
was not long before their approach to management galvanized local opinion
against them when objection was taken to the destruction of swathes of
woodland in a plan to drive two corridors through Monks Walk Wood by clear
felling through to join up the heath on either side. Representatives from
Chobham Parish Council, the Chobham Society, the Chobham Common
Preservation Committee and Chobham Common Riders’ Association wrote to the
Trust saying they would have to rethink their continuing with the
consultation on the plan (4): Come forward six years to 2008 and the Surrey Wildlife Trust was consulting again on their management plan, but because of the contention of previous years, they brought in a consultant to manage the “Chobham Stakeholder Engagement” (5). It is no surprise that the consultation document presents grazing in a favourable light amongst a range of management options (6). The Countryside Access Forum of Surrey County Council expects to see the draft management plan in April 2009, after which it will go out for public consultation. Thus just over ten years on from the public inquiry on fencing, expect another row over fencing on Chobham Common. Heathland restoration very quickly became a bandwagon that many Councils and NGO’s willingly jumped upon. One of the largest areas away from the Surrey heaths were those in Dorset, where the enthusiasm of one RSPB worker in 1999 got the better of him as he felled trees on the Dorset County Council-owned Avon Heath Country Park in five areas that were not covered by a Forestry Commission felling license.
In a rare step, the
Forestry Commission took the RSPB worker to court where he received a
£1000 fine, but this prosecution may have been spurred on by protests from
St Ives and St Leonard's residents who first drew attention to the illegal
felling (7) and by a series of written questions tabled by a local MP in
2000 to the agriculture minister. Mr Chope asked on how many occasions in
each of the last five years breaches of tree felling licences had been
brought to the notice of the Forestry Commission; and what enforcement or
remedial action had resulted (8). He then asked specifically about the
felling licenses issued for the Avon Heath Country Park and whether they
had been breached, before going on to ask what action would be taken of
the RSPB. In a subsequent question he delved further into the felling
licenses issued to the RSPB, and then tellingly asked for a copy to be
deposited in the Commons Library of the preliminary guidance drawn up by
the Forestry Commission as to (9): The scale of the Dorset heathland project - Hardy's Egdon Heath (7000ha) - has led to it receiving more scrutiny than most, especially in terms of its “sustainability issues”. The flaws in the project, especially the wasteful aspects of it, were revealed in an appraisal of sustainability by the Forum for a Future (10). Their report notes that provision had not been made to make use of the tree, gorse and heather clearings, which could have found use in wood fuel systems in community heating schemes, rather than be burnt on site. The language of their criticisms is measured, such as when they advocate a reduction in the use of energy hungry heavy machinery, but even they must have been dazed by the use of helicopters to spray herbicide on the bracken, when with more humanscale techniques, it could have been cleared and composted from some areas. They also noted that the herbicide spray was killing off ecologically important fern species.
Perhaps their most
damning criticism is that the Dorset heaths project appears to have lacked
a shared, locally agreed long term vision and overall plan for multiple
land use and resource protection, in spite of the fact that, as with many
other heathland restoration projects, it received Heritage Lottery funding
and EU Life funding. They allude to the fact that the project had more to
do with the aspirations of conservation professionals than it did to the
local population, and indicate the tensions that have existed (10): Heathland restoration has perhaps been the strongest indicator of why the target driven approach in the UKBAP has, to the general public, been such an arbitrary and contentious issue. I don’t need to rehearse the arguments about whether heath is a natural landscape, or whether it’s intrinsic value is overstated by single interest groups, but the fact remains that the level of destruction in “turning back the clock”, and the often subsequent imposition of fencing and grazing regimes, does not find favour outside of conservation circles. Nor is there any sense of ownership with local people when they are not consulted, even when it concerns land in public ownership, and when the consultation never starts with a clean sheet.
It is easy to document
the contention throughout England – local and sometimes national
newspapers love to report on the plight of people, faced with an unbending
bureaucracy. Thus local campaigner Elynor Gilbert, who listened to the
whole three-day public inquiry into an application to fence
Odiham Common in February 2003, is
reported in the Fleet News and Mail as saying that she could not believe
Hart Council went ahead with the original fencing scheme in 1998 (11):
She went on:
Michael Matthews, the
Co-ordinator of the Esher Commons
Interest Committee, wrote to the Surrey Advertiser to explode some of the
myths that were building up about the Surrey Heathland Project(12): Restoration of lowland heath receives the most attention, but the contention at Blacka Moor shows that the restoration of moorland heath also continues apace and causes just as much disagreement. Sheffield City Council received a petition in 2005 containing 761 signatures collected by the Friends of Blacka Moor. The petition called on the Council to keep Blacka Moor free from cattle and barbed wire by asking the Council not to seek to alter the original 1933 Graves Covenant with the Charity Commission so that the historical rights to open access for walks and pleasure grounds could be maintained (13). A member of the Friends of Blacka Moor said that previous plans to manage the area drawn up some years ago had not been pursued, that Sheffield Wildlife Trust had still not presented a scheme for managing the land, and had issued a misleading statement referring to objectors as a “small and unrepresentative minority” (13). He asked the City Council to respect the wishes of the users of Blacka Moor.
Sadly, the opportunity to offload Blacka Moor to Sheffield
Wildlife Trust outweighed any local consideration, and it was not long
before trees were being felled, barbed wire fences were erected, and
cattle grazing imposed on the moor for the first time in 70 years. The
dismay of local people was explained at length in a letter to the
Sheffield Telegraph by NA Goodwin in July, 2007. He detailed the futility
of the consultation process where alternatives that were favoured by local
people where ignored, as it had always been the intention of the wildlife
trust to impose fencing and grazing (14):
Even those who now lived elsewhere were moved to write of
their concerns. Thus Christopher Moreland now living in Devon was shocked
at the changes at Blacka Moor when he returned in August 2007 (15):
This cutting across of the original purpose of the public
ownership of the moor was also the concern of Helen Morton and Joy
Lockwood, who wrote in disgust to the Sheffield Telegraph in September
2007. Their father, Stephen Morton, had been a founder member of the
Sheffield Ramblers’ Association, and his work is commemorated on the moor
by some birch plantings and a plaque (16): The sisters suffered another blow shortly afterwards when the trees planted in memory of their father were felled.
A Daily Telegraph article
from last May reported that local visitors to
Ashdown Forest were reduced to tears by the sight of trees being
toppled and the ground being churned up by bulldozers. The controversial
measures to restore and maintain heathland, including felling mature trees
and fencing off areas so sheep can be grazed, had angered the legion of
forest supporters who had banded together as the Ashdown Forest Action
Group, organised public meetings, and were demanding a public inquiry or
judicial review to change the way the forest was being managed. Gillian
Nassau of the Forest Action Group said (17):
Covering the same story a
few weeks earlier, the Independent had reported the view of Rose Moore,
who lives in Hartfield on the edge of Ashford Forest. She insisted that
those who oppose the felling programme were not "tree huggers" (18):
Eva Waring protested to
the Surrey Advertiser about plans for a second year of felling on
Oxshott Common in the cause of heathland
restoration (19):
Dorothea Jones is a
member of Esher Commons Interests Committee, which also opposes the tree
felling on Oxshott Common. She said
in the same article:
The management for heath at
Swineholes Wood in Staffordshire by Staffordshire Wildlife Trust
incensed Linda Malyon, an Ipstones
parish councillor and a member of Staffordshire Moorlands District Council (20):
An action group was
formed,
the Swineholes Wood
Conservation Group,
and has been locked in a bitter war of words with the Wildlife
Trust, which continued to remove tree saplings and chop down trees.
Tensions
rose when angry protesters held up banners near the entrance of
the wood and confronted workers who had come to cut down trees. Within
days, two representatives of the wildlife trust and an officer from Natural England
took parish councillors on a site visit,
after
which members of the public packed into Ipstones Village Hall to have
their say. Alan
Byatt, who lives at Ipstones Edge, said that, despite the public meeting,
the wildlife trust was not listening to people's views (21):
In a cynical move, when the Trust became aware that the
action group had enlisted the help of
Charlotte
Atkins, the Staffordshire Moorlands
MP, they pre-empted her contact with Natural England by eliciting support
from its Regional Office, and then Helen Gee, the Wildlife Trust's
reserves Manager, paraded that support in a News Release
(22):
Mr Gannon played the SSSI card, which
ultimately underlies the tree felling, and which presents a seemingly impassable
barrier for local people to circumvent, even though it is patently obvious
that the SSSI notification is inaccurate and thus erroneous:
The action group
subsequently invited
Charlotte
Atkins to tour the site in a bid to spur on their campaign. Ms
Atkins said (23):
A war of words has continued in the local
press, but it is Sylvia Plant of the action group whose letter best expresses the warm local regard in
which Swineholes Wood is held, and why there is so much concern at the
heavy handed management (24):
Friends of
Loxley and Wadsley Commons
near Sheffield were in despair at the management of the commons for restoration of
heath by the parks and countryside service of Sheffield City Council. They wrote to the Sheffield Telegraph (25): John Thompson disagreed with the actions of the Countryside Management Service in Hertfordshire when he wrote to the Daily Telegraph that they had (26) “embarked on a strategy of felling hundreds of healthy trees that previously thrived at beauty spots such as Bricket Wood Common and Colney Heath Common. Recently 60 healthy oak trees were felled on Nomansland, Wheathampstead, in order to promote the growth of grasses and heather. Local people are invited to participate in ‘consultations’ on the matter, but the powers that be seem not to care about what they feel”
At least at
Nomansland Common, public opinion has
eventually prevailed on the issue of fencing and grazing, although it
doesn’t bring back the trees (27):
A
series of articles in the Cornishman on various commons and moors in
West Penwith, Cornwall, over the summer has
catalogued the growing opposition to their being fenced off and grazed.
The scheme is being proposed under Natural England's HEATH (Heathland,
Environment, Agriculture, Tourism and Heritage) Project based on their
usual orthodoxy that it would restore the moorland heath. Local protestors
formed an action group Save Penwith Moors.
The group
collected 400 signatures (now 1,100) to a petition that has been sent to the Secretary
of State (28). Ian Cooke, an author who lives near the Nine Maidens
Common, said this of the proposal to fence the commons (29): An article in the Guardian on the opposition to fencing at last acknowledged that at the heart of this protest is a clash of values between professional conservationists and people who use the commons and moors regularly (30). Natural England and its local grouping with the National Trust, Penwith Council, Cornwall County Council and local commoners cite neglect for a spread of gorse and bracken. They are “poised and eager to employ their ‘best practice’ manuals on ‘enhancing’ the moorland habitat”. But the large numbers of people opposed are unconvinced that it is either necessary or desirable to tamper with the moor in this way, and who argue that the value of this landscape lies in its raw and wild simplicity.
Things moved on. St
Just Town Council resolved at the end of September that the proposals put
forward by the HEATH Project of erecting fences, stiles and gates would
have an adverse effect on access and tourism. The council informed the
Secretary of State, Natural England and St Ives MP Andrew George of their
decision (31). Some good news came when Natural England abandoned their
plans to graze and fence the Nine Maidens common - the commoners would not
back an application for fencing on the common. Ian, coordinator of the
Save Penwith Moors action group, said he hoped the campaign had gone some
way towards achieving this result (32)
Ian didn’t have to wait
long before his fears were proved right. Cattle grazing and fencing plans
for three moorland areas were confirmed by the National Trust and Natural
England, with the HEATH Project subsidising landowners to the tune of
£650,000 to fence and manage moorland at Lanyon Farm near Madron, Carnyorth Moor at St Just, and Carn
Galva near Zennor (33). Reaction was swift, with a letter from from Dr
John Butterworth (34): It should be noted that one of these landowners is the National Trust itself, and work began in November on their land with JCBs gouging out channels at Carn Galva, and kilometres of barbed wire going up there and at Lanyon Quoit. Thus land with open access is being blighted, paid for by a perverse use of Heritage Lottery Funds and European Regional Development Funds. For many in the area, it is hard to see if they will ever get their moors back or will they be fenced for ever more?
This was the key issue
at a packed forum meeting of 80 people at the end of November. The forum
was organized as a heathland working group by Penwith Distirct Council
after their Social, Economic and Environment Committee had failed to come
to a decision over the fencing. As one campaigner noted (35):
The forum heard
arguments from both the action group and Natural England, and the debate
that followed included farmers, fencers, commoners, ramblers, walkers and
horse-riders. A vote at the end of the meeting carried a motion (53 to 10)
(36):
This motion has no
authority to bind anyone, but then there is nothing to bind the National
Trust to this course of action either. Their land is not covered by any
statutory designation for heathland, and it is only a voluntary
contribution on their behalf to the Local Biodiversity Action Plan for
Cornwall (37).
Another vote against the fencing work continuing took place
when the
Social, Economic and Environment Committee of Penwith Council finally
resolved in December to take a position, based on the outcome of the Forum
meeting. Concerns were raised in the meeting at the legality of the National Trust works
at Carn Galva where Planning had not been involved, but that a Planning
Enforcement Officer would be tasked to look into it. The Rural Economy
Officer agreed that there had been a failing on the part of Natural
England in effectively communicating the project, which had led to the
present situation. The following resolution was then passed (38):
Turn into the new year,
and the prophesy of the action group became real when the National Trust
had to admit that their groundworks have been damaging and illegal.
A drain, inserted
to deal with ground water at a low point on the Carn Galva moorland
flooded three public rights of way and a track leading to the Nine Maidens
Circle. Jon Brookes, National Trust estates manager for West Penwith, said
somewhat disingenuously (39):
It was not long before
Mr Brookes
had to admit another mistake when the National Trust were
forced to remove a new cattle grid that had covered the width of a
bridleway near Garden Mine on Watch Croft, preventing horse riders from
their right to ride the track. I am not sure how Mr Brookes thinks people
will believe him when he says that it was the result of a "mix up". Ian
Cooke of the action group thinks this just adds to the air of incompetence
of the National Trust, and is demanding answers as to why public money is
being wasted like this (40):
The National Trust are knee deep in the dogma
that is driving heathland restoration, as evidenced by the protest at
their action at another location.
Bickerton Hill is a popular walking
place, mostly owned by the National Trust, and which is on the route of
the Sandstone Trail that links along a red sandstone ridge in
Cheshire.
The hill is predominantly wooded on either side of the ridge, and then
there are scattered trees in openings. In late October, 2008, angry villagers
took to Bickerton Hill to confront tree fellers who were clearing an area
of woodland. The Friends of Bickerton Hill had concerns at the
number of birch that were being cleared as part of a program of heathland
restoration. A meeting was held on the hill with the Friends and the
National Trust to discuss a compromise. Afterwards, Tony Ord of the
Friends said (41):
This agreement was
refuted by the National Trust, who claimed that the felling was only
temporarily halted while the meeting had taken place. Thus it is not
surprising that the return without warning of the contractors weeks later
drew the dismay of the Friends (42):
The National Trust said
that the tree felling was supported by Natural England, the Forestry
Commission and Cheshire County Council.
Then
Christopher Widger, Cheshire Countryside Property Manager for the National
Trust,
played the SSSI card (42): This is another example (along with Swineholes Wood and Blacka Moor) of an irresponsible and poorly demarcated blanket designation for heathland that puts woodland at risk. Both units of the SSSI are notified only for lowland dwarf shrub heath. For this SSSI to be considered in favourable condition, there has to be less than 15% cover of trees and scrub. However, the National Inventory of Woodland shows that about 75% of the area of this SSSI as woodland, and this predominance of woodland cover is borne out by ariel photographs. You can thus imagine the outcry if the National Trust did follow the statutory guidelines and felled most of the rest of the trees. It’s all just such a nonsense, with the National Trust and Natural England seemingly defending the indefensible as they pick and choose what suits them. Wetley Moor is a registered common of 118 hectares near Stoke on Trent, in public ownership since 1927 and jointly managed by Stoke City Council and Staffordshire Moorlands Council through the Wetley Moor Joint Committee (WMJC) (43). A proportion of the moor is enclosed as individual field plots and some residential and business units. The remaining open moor of about 70ha was designated a SSSI in 1955 for lowland heath. There is one commoner registered for grazing. A feasibility study in 1996 first made recommendations for grazing the heathland of the SSSI, and since then a familiar pattern has emerged, including the use of Countryside Stewardship for heathland management. A grazing regime that encompassed all of the the heath of the SSSI was consulted on in 2000 and opposition to the proposal resulted in the formation of the Wetley Moor Action Group (WMAG).
The WMJC
subsequently modified their proposals and made an application in 2002
under the Law of Property Act 1925 for the enfencing for conservation
grazing of a much reduced trial area of just ten hectares. Objections were
received from WMAG, the Open Spaces Society, the one registered commoner,
and many others when a public inquiry was held in 2003. In spite of the
inspector recommending that permission for the fencing be given, the
Secretary of State refused (44). At issue was the state of repair of the
fences around the enclosed parts of the common, and which put the trial at
risk through the potential loss of the grazing livestock. Since these
fences were in private care, the councils had no control over them. The
Open Spaces Society made additional points, one of which was about the
illegal enclosures of the common (45): The councils had inherited this situation when the common became publicly owned, but they should have been aware that the issue of illegal enclosures had been raised in Parliament in 1924, three years before they took ownership (46). The enclosed plots are privately occupied under the terms of various tenancy and licence agreements with the WMJC. It is a perverse situation that the WMJC receives an annual income from these illegal agreements of around £11,500. Shortly after the decision, the Secretary of State met with the WMAG and with Charlotte Atkins, the local MP (see Swineholes Wood above) and in later correspondence with the WMJC (47), he urged the councils to build bridges between the Joint Committee and the local community and by considering how to “to establish a management regime on the site that would command the confidence of all parties” When the WMJC couldn’t find any organisation to offload responsibility for the moor (including Natural England) they eventually pursued agreement on grazing proposals with a new voluntary forum, which significantly the Open Space Society declined to join. This culminated in December 2008 with a proposal for a five year management trial at Wetley Moor that will examine the effectiveness of burning, mowing and grazing management methods on the heathland, using temporary fencing to enclose two comparable seven hectare areas, the fencing needing application to Government for permission (48). The proposal was out for consultation until 5 January 2009.
Natural
England are unlikely to be happy with this outcome since in a revealing
letter to the WMJC back in February 2007 when it first approached them
about a possible period of trail grazing, Tony Percival, Regional
Director,
Natural England West Midlands,
noted his concern
that (49): This deadline is of course on Natural England (and not the councils) in meeting the Government's Public Service Agreement target of getting 95% of SSSls into favourable or recovering condition by 2010. In a naked and extraordinary piece of attempted bullying, the letter reminded the WMJC of the stick that Natural England can wield in these circumstances by virtue of legislation on SSSIs, and the DEFRA code for SSSIs. Hartlebury Common is a “metropolitan” open access space near Stourport, publicly owned by Worcestershire County Council since 1968. This registered commons is a SSSI notified for heathland and woodland, as well as a Local Nature Reserve that attracts 200,000 visitors a year. There are no commoners registered for grazing and it is recognised that the common has not been grazed in over 100 years. External consultants were brought in by the County Council in 2008 to develop a fencing and grazing plan. Following a scoping report in August, the consultants held a public meeting in the September at which 90 people turned up. Detailed proposals to introduce grazing to Hartlebury Common through a Higher Level Stewardship agreement were then delivered in a report in October (50). The whole perimeter of the common would be enclosed by fencing, and it would also be divided by fencing both sides of a road that runs through the common. By law, common land cannot be enclosed or divided and thus an application for permission to carry out these restricted works would be needed.
It is interesting to note
that the consultants considered any criticism of the proposals to be a
minority view, but they went further in their comment on the dissent (50):
We should perhaps judge
whether this was an attempt to deflect discontent with their proposals by
considering a verbal report on the public meeting that was given to
Hartlebury Parish Council by County Coun Maurice Broomfield (51):
The County Council
applied to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
for consent under section 38 of the Commons Act 2006 to carry out
restricted works on Hartlebury Common (52) and then gave legal notice
that any objections should be made to the Planning Inspectorate by 9
January 2009 (53). The Open Space Society is not happy. By statute they are
notified of all applications for works on common land submitted to the
Secretary of State for Environment, and they have certainly objected to
this one. Their local representative, Edgar Powell, doesn't think
the
council can lawfully erect fencing there in any case (54): Other than its illegality, the detail of their objection is that the proposed fencing is not consistently on the boundary of the common and therefore will unnecessarily create 12 isolated parcels of common, and the fencing proposed along both sides of the A4025 will break the common into compartments. The overall effect will thus be to restrict access, and will detract both visually and in spirit the open nature that makes a common a special place. I would add that the proposed fencing line encloses two areas of woodland that, unusually for a heathland SSSI, are separately notified (Unit 2 in the SSSI). The consultants report makes no mention of this woodland, nor whether they have considered the impact that being included in the grazing area will have on its ground flora and on its potential for regeneration.
Like hearing the first
cuckoo, Norton Heath Common in
Essex provides an early report in 2009 of protest over the
felling of trees in the cause of heathland restoration. Villagers living
next to the publicly owned common of just over four hectares are furious
that their local (and only) woodland is being destroyed by
Countrycare, Epping
Forest District Council's countryside management service. Rosemary Ellis,
58, has lived near the common all her life, and she speaks for the village
when she says (55) Rosemary has the support of Council County Councillor, Gerard McEwan who believes it must have appeared to local people as “more like a chainsaw massacre and they are extremely angry that public money should be used in this way”
And it is Maggie McEwen,
the District Councillor who lives in and represents the village that gets
to the heart of the problem (55):
The usual weak response
of Countrycare is that the work has received the support of Natural
England and the Forestry Commission, but obviously not that of the local
villagers as the LBAP for Essex from 1999 foretold (56): The LBAP lists the usual targets for heathland management and restoration, as well as an array of heathland sites in Essex. Norton Heath Common is not on that list, nor is it given as a target area for restoration. Perhaps the reason is that there is no remnant heather on the common (57) and it is likely that there hasn’t been for many decades as the age of the oak of 50-70 years and its coverage across the common suggests (58). As is noted in the LBAP for Hertfordshire, heathland restoration becomes less feasible in this situation (59). So why is this happening? Counrtrycare employed a butterfly specialist from nearby Writtle College to advise on a tree felling plan on the Common under the auspices of it being a heathland restoration (60, 61). Thus after a felling licence was obtained that will allow up to 30% of the woodland to be felled (Fell/Thin (Unconditional) 017/190/06 -07) clearance began in February 2007 of “15-20 birch and oak” (60) and “Approximately 50 trees were felled in the winter of 2007/08” (61). This imprecision in accounting, which probably continued with the recent felling this year, makes it hard to see how there will be compliance with the 30% limit set by the felling license. In addition to the felling, soil scraping was carried out and observation plots set up with the apparent aim of monitoring heath recovery. With only two seasons to comment on, the conservation professionals are already parading their success to the rest of the conservation community (62) but this has more to do with the number of butterflies that have been counted as there has been no return of heather, and while it is not admitted in that report, it is noted elsewhere that it may be necessary to reintroduce heather by sowing seed from elsewhere (57). I can only conclude that Norton Heath Common has become the plaything of conservation professionals who want to use it as a test bed for their own pet experiments, especially in bringing into this woodland common insects of open landscapes that are their own particular interest. It is thus their choice to trade off mature oaks in return for insect species. However, this publicly owned wood is a valuable island in a large area of woodless landscape. High Ongar Parish Council have thus asked Countrycare to stop the fellings until there have been further talks with local villagers (55). It would help in this if the website link to the Management Plan 08-11 for the common on the council website actually went somewhere, so that local people could see what is intended to be done in their name (58). (This inoperative link was removed from the webpage, and replaced with a link to photographs of the common taken in February 2009. Thus Countrycare are still not prepared to let people see the Management Plan.)
Within days of the
report in the local paper, the furore that the tree felling had caused led
to heated discussions on site between residents, parish councillors and
Countrycare.
The local residents weren't prepared to compromise and they
wanted their woodland left alone. Rosemary Ellis again spoke for many when
she said (63):
Confirming my suspicions
of why the felling was really being undertaken, Paul Hewitt of Countrycare
manager is reported to have said (63):
However, Countrycare
recognise they cannot continue with the felling in the face of such
opposition, and in a rare instance of contrition, Mr Hewitt acknowledged
the failings of his service (63): Ignoring their own guidance
Natural England have been
aware of the contention around heathland restoration for a number of years
as they sponsored guidance on agreeing management on common land (where
heath is often found) and also a report on commons management in the SE.
The former, the guidance A Common Purpose: A guide to agreeing
management on common land has been around for three years, and it
seeks to reduce the potential for contention. One of its Golden Rules is
(64):
It is unfortunate that in
spite of this guidance being available, there is still a heavy hand
involved in most heathland restoration, but worse still there is an
essential dishonesty in any consultation processes – even though this and
the heavy hand is covered in the latter report. Thus South East
Commons and their Conservation Management looked at amongst other
things the controversy over tree clearance on commons (65):
The report highlighted
that one of the main problems that local people have with the conservation
management of SSSI commons was that stakeholders were rarely engaged in
the development of management proposals. Consequently, they can rightly
feel that proposals are being imposed upon them and that their views are
not valued, let alone considered (65): I would add to the pressures applied by SSSI designation and the deadline for the Public Service Agreement, the targets in the UKBAP and the various LBAPs, and the use of farming subsidy in stewardship agreements as a means to achieve those targets eg. the original Countryside Stewardship Scheme which is now replaced by the Higher Level Stewardship scheme. It is NEVER a clean sheet when communities are consulted on nature conservation management, if they are consulted at all. I would also note that in almost all cases – Ashdown Forest, Blacka Moor, Chobham Common, Hartlebury Common, Loxley and Wadsley Common, Nomansland Common, Odiham Common, Wetley Moor, Norton Heath Common etc. – the issue of public ownership and thus the public will is at stake. Many of these landscapes were covenanted to the free use by the public that owns them. Now, they are caught up in the juggernaut that is nature conservation that cuts across that open access and denies a right for the public to have any meaningful say in their management. There is a map on Natural England's Tomorrow's Heathland Heritage website of the distribution lowland heath in the UK (66). In England, it can be used as a route map of protest over autocratic and high handed nature conservation. Mark Fisher 5 October 2008 - updated 12 December 2008, 8 January 2009, 22 January 2009, 1 March 2009 (1) National Heathland Conference 2008: Managing Heathlands in the Face of Climate Change, National Science Learning Centre, University of York 9, 10 & 11 September 2008 www.keystone-group.co.uk/heathlands/index.php (2) About the Chobham Common Riders Association www.chobham.com/ccra/about.html (3) Important conservation site under threat, English Nature Press Release 29 October 1998 www.english-nature.org.uk/news/story.asp?ID=119 (4) Woodland dialogue collapsing, Debby Thompson, Surrey Advertiser 6 November 2003 www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/60014_woodland_dialogue_collapsing (5) Chobham Stakeholder Engagement, Countryside Access Forum Meeting 21 April 2008, Surrey County Council (6) Chobham Common Consultation, Surrey Wildlife Trust May 2008 (7) RSPB man fined for tree felling, Dorset Echo 17 November 2000 http://archive.thisisdorset.net/2000/11/17/108631.html (8) Tree Felling Licences, Mr Chope/Mr Morley House of Commons Hansard Written Answers 8 Mar 2000 (9) Tree Felling Licences, Mr Chope/Mr Morley House of Commons Hansard Written Answers 14 Mar 2000 (10) The Dorset Heathlands Projects: ‘Hardy’s Egdon Heath’ and Urban Heaths LIFE Project, South West Sustainable Land Use Initiative sustainability appraisal case study, Forum for the Future, October 2004 www.forumforthefuture.org.uk/docs/publications/267/DorsetHeath2.pdf (11) Victory for the common land campaigners, Fleet News and Mail Online, 8 July 2003 (12) Esher Commons: Felling angered thousands of residents, Surrey Advertiser, 26 January 2006 www.getsurrey.co.uk/letters/s/57446_esher_commons_felling_angered_thousands_of_residents (13) Petition concerning cattle grazing on Blacka Moor, Public Questions and Communications, Sheffield City Council Meeting 5 October 2005
(14) Which minority
rules on Blacka Moor? NA Goodwin, Sheffield Telegraph 27 July 2007
(15) What's happening
on Blacka Moor? Christopher Moreland, Sheffield Telegraph 24 August 2007
(16) Time to fight this
moors restriction, Helen Morton and Joy Lockwood, Sheffield Telegraph 2
September 2007 (17) Anger over management of Ashdown Forest, Paul Eccleston, Daily Telegraph 25 May 2007 www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/05/25/eaash19.xml (18) Oh bother! Nimbies do battle with council over Pooh's forest, Jonathan Brown, Independent 21 April 2007 (19) Protesters outraged at commons tree felling, Surrey Advertiser, 7 August 2007 www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2013540_protesters_outraged_at_commons_tree_felling (20) Too many trees being cut down, Roger Houldcroft, The Sentinel 7 February 2008 (21) Trust turns deaf ear to protests, Matt Beeson and Danielle Harrison, Ashbourne News Telegraph 7 May 2008 www.ashbournenewstelegraph.co.uk/ashbournenewstelegraph-news/displayarticle.asp?id=313125 (22) Top Conservation Expert Backs Wildlife Charity, Staffordshire Wildlife Trust News release 30 May 2008 www.staffordshirewildlife.org.uk/downloadcol.asp?fileid=2658&detailsid=33 (23) MP gives backing to Swineholes protest, Burton Mail 27 August 2008 www.burtonmail.co.uk/burtonmail-video/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=343519
(24) Balance has been
ruined, Leek Post and Times 17 October 2008 (25) Tree felling goes against green tag, Sue Laing and friends of Wadsley and Loxley Commons, Sheffield Telegraph 15 February 2008 www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/letters/Tree-felling-goes-against-green.3782479.jp (26) Oaks being felled to make way for grass and heather, John Thompson, Letter, Daily Telegraph 15 March 2008 www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/03/15/nosplit/dt1501.xml#head11 (27) Cattle-grazing plan for Nomansland Common is thrown out, The Herts Adverstiser, 31 July 2008 (28) Petition against cattle grazing signed by 400, Cornishman 20 August 2008 www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/Petition-cattle-grazing-signed-400/article-280864-detail/article.html
(29)
Group forms
to stop cattle grazing on moorland, Cornishman 9 July 2008 (30) Conservation: Running the wilds, Alex Pitt, Guardian 17 September 2008 www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/17/conservation.activists (31) Council against Heath scheme, Cornishman 1 October 2008 www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/homepagenews/Council-Heath-scheme/article-366696-detail/article.html (32) Joy as cattle-grazing plans abandoned, Cornishman 2 October 2008 (33) Plans to graze cows on moor confirmed, Cornishman 22 October 2008 (34) Gloom and anger at grazing, Cornishman 29 October 2008 www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/homepagenews/Gloom-anger-grazing/article-436731-detail/article.html (35) To graze or not to graze in rural Penwith, Cornishman 4 November 2008 www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/homepagenews/graze-graze-rural-Penwith/article-448108-detail/article.html (36) ‘Will we get moors back?’ Cornishman 3 December 2008 www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/homepagenews/moors/article-520842-detail/article.html (37) Heathland – Cornwall, Volume 2, Cornwall’s Biodiversity www.wildlifetrust.org.uk/avon/www/Habitats/Low_heath/low_heath_cornwall.htm (38) Minutes of the Social, Economic and Environment Committee, Penwith District Council 10 December 2008 www.penwith.gov.uk/media/adobe/g/1/101208msee.pdf (39 ) 'We'll repair moor damage' This is Plymouth, 14 January 2009 www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/ll-repair-moor-damage/article-614833-detail/article.html (40) Trust admits 'mix-up' over cattle grid, this is Cornwall, 26 February 2009 www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/Trust-admits-mix-cattle-grid/article-729672-detail/article.html (41) Deal struck over Trust’s work on hill, Crewe Chronicle 29 October 2008 (42) National Trust ‘dawn raid’ angers Friends, Chester Chronicle 21 November2008 (43) About Wetley Moor www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=120&pageNumber=1 (44) Proposed works on Wetley Moor Common, Common Land Branch, DEFRA 29 April 2004 www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/downloads/Decison_letter_29th_April_2004.pdf (45) Wetley Moor Common saved from fencing blight, Open Spaces Society 6 May 2004 www.oss.org.uk/news/local%20news%202004.htm#Wetley%20Moor%20Common%20saved%20from%20fencing%20blight (46) Wetley Moor, Staffordshire (encroachments) – House of Commons 27 February 1924 (47) Ministers reply – letter from Alun Michael Minister for Rural Affairs to Wetley Moor Joint Committee 31 July 2004 www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/downloads/Minister-s_Reply_31st_July_2004.pdf (48) Details of a management study for Wetley Moor SSSI, Wetley Moor Joint Committee, www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/downloads/Wetley_Moor_Managment_Trial.pdf (49) Wetley Moor SSSI- letter from Natural England to the Wetley Moor Joint Committee, 14 February 2007 www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/downloads/Item9a_AppG.pdf (50) The introduction of grazing to Hartlebury Common: issues and options for livestock management, Land Use Consultants October 2008 http://worcestershire.whub.org.uk/home/wcc-countryside-hcfencingissues_options.pdf (51) Minutes of the Meeting of Hartlebury Parish Council, 7 October 2008 www.hartlebury.org.uk/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Oct%2008%20PC%20Minutes.pdf (52) Hartlebury Common - Application for consent to construct works on common land, Worcestershire County Council 14 November 2008 http://worcestershire.whub.org.uk/home/wcc-countryside-hcfencingapp.pdf (53) Hartlebury Common, Worcestershire County Council 25 November 2008 http://worcestershire.whub.org.uk/home/wcc-countryside-hcfencinglegalnotice.pdf (54) Concern about Hartlebury Common fencing plan, Open Space Society 7 January 2009 www.oss.org.uk/news/Local%20news%202009.htm#Concern%20about%20Hartlebury%20Common%20fencing%20plan (55) NORTON HEATH: Your favourite trees are being cut down, This is Total Essex 20 January 2009 (56) Heathland, Essex Biodiversity Action Plan – A wild future for Essex www.essexbiodiversity.org.uk/Data/Sites/1/GalleryImages/pdf/Essex%20BAP/HABITATS.pdf (57) Restoration of Norton Heath Common, Epping Forest District Council (58) Norton Heath Common, Epping Forest District Council http://mailhost.eppingforestdc.gov.uk/Council_Services/planning/countrycare/norton_heath.asp (59) A 50-year vision for the wildlife and natural habitats of Hertfordshire, A Local Biodiversity Action Plan, 1998, Revised March 2006, Hertfordshire Environmental Forum http://enquire.hertscc.gov.uk/qol/2006/50yearvision.pdf (60) Norton Heath Survey, Tim Gardiner, Epping Forest Countrycare Survey 2007 (61) Restoration of Norton Heath Common, Tim Gardiner, Epping Forest Countrycare Survey 2008 (62) Responses of ground flora and insect assemblages to tree felling and soil scraping as an initial step to heathland restoration at Norton Heath Common, Essex, England Tim Gardiner & Andrew Vaughan http://www.conservationevidence.com/ViewEntry.asp?ID=1306 (63) Residents win a halt to oak tree 'massacre', this is total Essex 2 February 2009 (64) A Common Purpose: A guide to agreeing management on common land, Short et al (2005) sponsored by English Nature, RDS Defra, Open Spaces Society, The Countryside Agency and the National Trust http://naturalengland.communisis.com/naturalenglandshop/docs/CP1.pdf (65) South East Commons and their Conservation Management, Entec (2005) English Nature and the Countryside Agency www.english-nature.org.uk/about/teams/team_photo/CommonLandReport.pdf (66) Tomorrow's Heathland Heritage, English Nature supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund www.english-nature.org.uk/thh/ url:www.self-willed-land.org.uk/heath_madness.htm www.self-willed-land.org.uk mark.fisher@self-willed-land.org.uk |