Hands Off Hartlebury Common

#1144: - Re: ownership

As you heard, the judge muttered a lot of things at the hearing, most of them innacurate and misleading. Who told you we could not appeal?

#1152: - Re: Re: Re: Re: ownership

Not my problem, that's for you to work out if you think what they are doing is illegal

People bang on about the cost of the fencing but the truth is that it's our taxes that are paying for these schemes up and down the country. The 400 million that NE dishes out every year is paid for by you and I. I do not think people realise that in the context of the thousands of people jumping on this bandwagon. It was not vandalism, I and anbody is in fact compelled by law to remove illegal imediments. So far, we have yet to be issued a caution, never mind treated as vandals. The court hearing was for the recovery of costs, subject to the above because they could not prove title. The fencing coming down and an end to this scheme would save the tax payer a small foutune, locally and nationally.

People bang on about the cost of the fencing but the truth is that it's our taxes that are paying for these schemes up and down the country. The 400 million that NE dishes out every year is paid for by you and I. I do not think people realise that in the context of the thousands of people jumping on this bandwagon. It was not vandalism, I and anbody is in fact compelled by law to remove illegal imediments. So far, we have yet to be issued a caution, never mind treated as vandals. The court hearing was for the recovery of costs, subject to the above because they could not prove title. The fencing coming down and an end to this scheme would save the tax payer a small foutune, locally and nationally.

#1171: -

Were not selling any at the moment, not because we are not getting enquires but because we use Aluminium Bronze CA104

Our local casting company originally supplied us  castings in the above material. However as good as CA104 is (it looks like gold when finished) we were faced with an unacceptable degree of porosity and therefore scrap castings. Rather than cast in another metal, we have put things on hold indefinatley until we can redress this issue. Our cutlery graces some of the finest dining tables in the country.

Case not proven and far from resolved. I can think of two schemes where the public finally had these schemes stopped. It was not easy but it happened. It was decided after 10 years that the experiment had failed in both.

The landscape was ruined, see below.

How DO YOU FEEL TO WRITING UP A GOOD DOCUMENT ON THE AGENDA'S ETC OF NE, SOMETHING LIKE 4-5 PAGES OUTLINING THE COMPLAINTS AND DAMAGE CAUSED TO HEATH LAND?

NATURAL ENGLAND MANAGEMENT POLICY ON HEATHLAND
AND THEIR OUTCOMES

See English Nature. The importance of livestock grazing for wildlife conservation 2005 from www.hart.gov.uk

Lowland heath occurs on poor,
acidic soils and is characterised by
plants such as heather, cross-leaved
heath and gorse. Lowland heathland
provides a habitat for birds of
European importance, including
the Dartford warbler, nightjar
and woodlark. It is also the primary
habitat for rare reptiles, such as the
sand lizard and smooth snake.
Birds, reptiles and heathland plant
species require a mosaic of both open
and dense vegetation. Well-managed
heathland contains areas of grassland
and gorse, scattered trees and scrub
and also bare ground. This habitat
can only be maintained through active
management, of which livestock
grazing is an essential component.

What we are
doing
English Nature recognises the
extremely valuable role that livestock
grazing plays in managing our most
important wildlife habitats. The future
viability of the livestock sector, in
particular extensive beef production,
is therefore intrinsically linked to our
ability to deliver our environmental
objectives. We will be working hard,
with a range of other organisations
and partners, to find ways to help
livestock farmers make the most of
the environmental credentials of their
product in the market place. We will
also be looking at the best way to
support those livestock farmers and
graziers who are managing important
habitats with little economic return, to
ensure that the public benefits that
their activities produce are recognised
and rewarded.

To get as much money from Europe, cattle are part of the equation. That is exactly why the same blueprint is used all over the country whether or not it is relevant to the ecology of a place. It is simply a cash enabling exercise which is why the public is excluded, the consultative process is deliberately circumscribed and due process in a consultative context is wholly inadequate and deliberately so, because it cannot be coincidence that this same process is repeated over and over in separate areas of the country. See the list below.

Natural England now has total control of the multimillions of the Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) scheme funding, allowing it to be used to advance their chosen agenda of “bringing biodiversity priority habitat in[to] beneficial management” Mark Fisher

This is a list of how Natural England’s heathland management scheme is currently being received and how it impacts on these places:

Ashdown Forest - "At Wren's Warren heavy machinery has crushed the land and created huge ruts. Any underground animal habitats must have been destroyed. Trees which included mature oaks were felled and vegetation stripped leaving a scene of desolation" Opposition – Ashdown Forest Action Group.

Avon Heath Country Park, Dorset – Breaches of tree felling licences. Agent Dorset County Council
Bickerton Hill

Blacka Moor, Sheffield – Misappropriation of land by Sheffield City Council (covenant re-written). Cattle introduced alongside the red deer with no actual method of differentiating between impact of deer and impact of cattle. Agent: Sheffield Wildlife Trust

Blackawton, Mary Tavy, Devon

Bricket Wood Common, Hertfordshire -

Chobham Common, Surrey - Local opposition from 1996 against fencing the common. Agent: Surrey Wildlife Trust

Colney Heath Common, Hertfordshire -

Hardy’s Egdon Heath, Dorset – use of helicopters to spray herbicide on bracken, killing off ecologically important fern species. 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. Agent: RSPB, English Nature

Esher Commons
Harden Common

Hartlebury Common, Worcestershire – Local opposition after a rushed through public inquiry, as at Kingwood. Erosion already taking place following the removal of birch. The resultant bracken being sprayed with Asulox. Mosses and heather dead through the drying out of the sandy soil. Agent: Worcestershire County Council

Isles of Scilly headland grazing scheme – local opposition, paths restricted and churned up due to electric fencing and cattle, burning of headlands. Agent: Isles of Scilly Wildlife Trust

Kingwood Common, Oxfordshire – No consultative process took place. No alternative plans presented to users of the common. Kingwood Common is WOODLAND, and less than 10% heathland. Agent: Nettlebed Conservators, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust.


Loxley and Wadsley Commons, Sheffield –"The Council's alleged plan to restore the lowland heath to its original splendour seems to be back firing. In almost 15 years, and after butchery of hundreds of birch, oak, pine, beech to name but a few of our wonderful trees - previously without a licence from the Forestry Commission - there is no sign of any new heather. And now the Council have been granted a licence to fell a further 2800 trees the Commons will be decimated” Agent: Sheffield City Council

Nomansland Common, Hertfordshire –

Norton Heath Common

Odiham Common, Hampshire – After 10 years of destruction following ‘heathland restoration’ and the accompanying grants, the common is due to return to a natural space under a new management plan. Opposition was 450:1 against the initial tree felling. Agent: Hart Council

Oxshott Common, Surrey – Local opposition to an ‘hostile and alien landscape’. Agent: Esher Borough Council (?) Opposition – Esher Commons Interests Committee.

Penwith Moors, Cornwall
Prees Heath, Shropshire

Swineholes Wood, Staffordshire – No consultation. Eventual public meeting where SWT did not listen to people’s views. Agent: Staffordshire Wildlife Trust. Opposition – Swineholes Wood Conservation Group

Wetley Moor, Stoke on Trent – Agent: Stoke City Council and Staffordshire Moorlands Council. Opposition: Wetley Moor Action Group.

Whitchurch Heath Common, Shropshire – The Agent: Butterfly Conservation


SUMMARY

The natural beauty of all these places are being destroyed much to the public’s disgust – the people that actually use and enjoy these spaces. Natural biodiversity is being lost, trees felled, for what actual gain?

Misappropriating common land. . .

The scheme will generate ‘More paperwork than genuine evidence’ regarding conservation techniques.

Is this a fit and proper organisation to administer the natural beauty of this country?