Hands Off Hartlebury Common

#971: -

Saw it too, I'm glad I'm more enlightened. Nothing but simplistic nonsense, just tv fodder.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b011w6nj/?t=20m40s

I suggest that people watch it too with particular reference to the NE blokes suggested cure for a dried up moor.

Is this guy serious?

The BBC are in partnership with NE (open spaces campaign)

Ne does the work, implements the scemes, the BBc are on hand to film the happy volunteers etc.

Commercial tripe, nothing more. If you are that impressed, you can stand in the main carpark and read the sign boards for free.

Thanks for your comment GUEST, keep watching telly. Below is a similar scheme to the "Creating corridors of heathland" in the programme.

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):
“extremely disappointed with this decision, which has allowed the management of this internationally important wildlife site to take second place to misplaced fears about accessibility and appearance"

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):
“The failures by SWT call into question whether it is possible to have any rational constructive dialogue with your organisation and we shall be discussing this problem with our respective organisations — particularly whether we should withdraw from the so-called consultative process — in the next few weeks.”

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.

Steve McCarron

#972: -

It's good to debate, are you agreeing with our campaign?

McCarron

#978: -

Ok, did you see the scale of the problem?. The method prescribed is useless unless there is a change in weather pattern (Unlikeley) If the moor has not been subject to the deliberate draining or drainage, it is also more unlikeley.

My objections are not based on a deslike of NE, just their policies that do not work. Can you give me an example where they have. Reducing deer populations to encourage floor growth of desirable plants is a no brainer, primary school stuff. What I mean is these grandiose schemes of eco modeling and conversion to create unsustainable habitat. Have you read any of the works by Richard Maybey? I have enclosed the following to illustrate the publics argument.

Stephen Yandall

#975: Steve McCarron - cost of fencing 

#980: Graham Dodd - Re: cost of fencing

We have a thousand written signatures also. In four weeks, and that figure is rising as we speak.

Slightly more than in the so called consultative process.

60 people attended at seperate times

40 people voted

26 in favour

Only properties adjacent to the common were notified

The only persons who think that due diligence was observed during this process is WCC and the commons group. Nobody else.

Action of this sort is justified IF it is for the greater good of humanity, the public and public interest, and normal process has been negligentley corrupt. Not just my point of view but also  the point of view of very upstanding, moral, intelligent, people as well. This is reflected across the country.

Steve McCarron

#981: Steve McCarron - Re: Re: cost of fencing 

#982: Graham dodd - Re: Re: Re: cost of fencing

We are on track with our campaign.

I cannott speak for WCC or NE.

WCC and NE's stance  in the near future is something we have made provision for, regardless.

Steve Mccarron

#983: Steve McCarron - cost of fencing

What are your plans then surley the people who have signed your petition have the right to know.

Tonights subject is management, apparentley?
The term management refers to the systematic "management" of the common. This has not happened before. Children may have planted trees Carol and utility companies pruned trees away from power lines. Gypsies derived grazing but as the common was useless, there has never been a real and concerted effort to "manage" the site for any real use. No management, just bit's of work here and there with no concerted plan. Which is why WCC say there has been no management for 100 years, or they did?

McCarron

#990: -

Not objection for the sake of it. I am experienced enough to have known some time ago this scheme is a job creation scam. The consultants were employed to support NE's point of view and speed to speed the enquiry process

"Maintaining an important habitat in the UK and world." Rubbish, why is it important? It's unatural. NE have failed to recognise,in fact denied,the existence of natural self sustaining heathland.Only on a challenge to Jim Paice did NE admit its existence. Natural Heath does not belong here. Trouble is, the common is 80% open space and heath as it is. If the bloody place was left alone, it would continue like that.

Listen, either you can only write and not read, or you are choosing not to. These objections are not just mine. When somebody has worked with HSS,s for thirty years and says that it has gone bad and can articulate why, why still talk about me. I am taking on the whole of NE as a bankrupt organisation, all you can do is go on about what I have written.

Look at this site will you, just one of many.

http://www.self-willed-land.org.uk/heath_madness.htm

mccarron

#989: Steve McCarron - Management

I dont think children have planted the trees but i am gonna be asking questions to a couple of older stourport folk who will remember dont know why you deleted my last post as it was a question abouy the common the common has been managed for years but not to the extent that it is now i grew up by habberley valley and you often saw rangers down there working if i remember correctly there was a rangers hut in the middle of the valley.

I will let you know what i find out if you have the desencey to listen but please remember other people may find it of interest.

#992: CAROL - Re: Management

I know children planted the trees, I have met some of them grown up now and some of the men who supervised them.

Regardless of the extent, there has never been deliberate widespread management, ever.

Anyway, this is academic as the work taking place on the common is illegal, it should be left well alone.

Anyone who is happy for the work to go ahead is happy to lose it.