Hands Off Hartlebury Common

Contact the author of the petition

This discussion topic has been automatically created of petition Hands Off Hartlebury Common.

This post has been removed by the author of this petition (Show details)

2011-06-29 02:16


This post has been removed by the author of this petition (Show details)

2011-06-29 02:19


This post has been removed by its writer (Show details)

2011-06-29 02:19


This post has been removed by the author of this petition (Show details)

2011-06-29 02:20


This post has been removed by its writer (Show details)

2011-06-29 02:21


This post has been removed by the author of this petition (Show details)

2011-06-29 02:23


This post has been removed by its writer (Show details)

2011-06-29 02:24


This post has been removed by its writer (Show details)

2011-06-29 02:26


This post has been removed by its writer (Show details)

2011-06-29 02:31


This post has been removed by its writer (Show details)

2011-06-29 02:34


This post has been removed by the author of this petition (Show details)

2011-06-29 08:38



Guest

#387

2011-06-29 11:07

I THOUGHT THIS SITE WAS ABOUT STOPING THE COWS AND THE CUTTING DOWN OF THE TREES.THE FENCE IS A SIDE ISSUE

This post has been removed by its writer (Show details)

2011-06-29 11:12


surrey resident

#389 my experience

2011-06-29 12:24

Steve,

I wish you well in fighting this environmental vandalism.

Here in Surrey and neighbouring Hampshire & West Sussex, thousands of acres of woodland (most of it naturally regenerating) have been decimated since 1998 (when "SPAs" were first designated).

In addition to massive loss of wildlife caused by the deforestation (there is not much left alive after the bulldozers beloved by organisations such as the National Trust, Surrey Wildlife Trust and the MOD go in, and which is often followed by soaking the land with glyphosate and asulox herbicides); many of the areas also now burn every time there is a dry spell (which is more and more often here).

The Forestry Commission recently published stats on woodland loss stating that (at least) around 10,000 acres of woodland have been destroyed in the pursuit of "open habitats" since 1997. However this will not be classed as permanent loss until 10 years of deforestation have been confirmed.

In most cases there were no consultations, and such consultations that have taken place have been a sham, either by circulating publicity to as few people as possible or by the ignoring of the responses of local people, Just like Hartlebury Common now, so I fear your resistance is destined to fail.




Good luck anyway.



Surrey resident.

Anonymous

#390 the common

2011-06-29 12:26

It is important to keep the biodiversity of the common and access for the public. This can only be achieved by maintaining the common in its current form.
Steve McCarron

#391 fire risk at the common

2011-06-29 12:27

You see, it's easy to get your argument wrong if you do not read clearly what I have said which is;

That by REDUCING scrub and tree cover and Widening the cover of heath and reducing natural fire breaks by installing heath do add up to an increased risk of fire.

You WILL create a drier more fire prone enviroment because the trees and scrub create shade and lock moisture into the ground, Green ground cover and wet or damp mulch underneath juvenile trees is not particulary flamable.

There were no trees at the site of the fire, just gorse which had become flamable because we are experiencing the driest spring since 1910.

Therefore, expanding heath area, climate change, windier weather, site on top of a hill, drier heath for longer periods, lack of natural firebreaks and the historic tendacy for the heath to be arsoned.

What makes you think I want an increase in scrub and gorse?

Do you think felling the pine plantation and the two adjacent decidious plantations will make the common less prone to fire?

Well managed heath eh, like this, the future of hartlebury Common?



"The Dorset Heathland Project was set up in 1989 in order to offset continuing losses of lowland heathland and to reduce fragmentation, through a programme of land management advice and habitat restoration.

The Project ran two teams, restoring heaths in the Avon Valley and Purbeck, mainly by removing invading trees. In 2003, the Project celebrated the milestone achievement of restoring over 1,000 hectares of lowland heath, successfully demonstrating that large-scale lowland heath restoration is a viable proposition."



And then this happens http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-13716970



Manage the site, conserve what is there by all means, but in 1976, these fires were a daily occurence throughout the land. Increasing fire risk by disregarding common sense in favour of rote arguments is not good enough. I am not in favour of a preponderence of anything, is that so wrong when 80% of the common is open space and heath anyway?

Is that really perverse?, I don't think so and most people agree. You cannot fathom the land and the way man and nature can interact from text books.

guest

#392 changes

2011-06-29 12:28

Having spoken with the rangers on many occasions even they do not seem to have any justifiable reasons for the changes.They just seem to be doing what they are told. The argument I put forward is that the Common has evolved over the last 50 years or so into what it is now and what Natural England are doing is actually interfering with the natural evolvement of the common. It appears to me that all that use the common do not want the trees removed and the character of the common changed artificially.
guest

#393 tree cutting figures

2011-06-29 12:30

There is an artlcle in the kidderminmster shuttle from about a month ago.

http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/letters/8988728.90__of_common___s_trees_to_b/

Not refuted, the councils estimation is 90%. I was told 90% by a ranger on site a few weeks ago but since I have been making serious enquiries and telling other people the figure seems to be dropping all the time. Will the council please tell us definatley. HOW MANY TREES WILL BE FELLED IN TOTAL? within 20 years
Steve McCarron

#394 bad planning

2011-06-29 12:33

To say that heathland is rarer than rain forest is purely a cheap imotive comment and does not really mean anything. The Rain forest is under threat becuase of tree felling and land clearence. Critisism of course is selctive.

Heathland is rare because our NATURAL countryside heals itself wherever it can and has.

With reference to Highgate, again you miss the point, the flora and fauna are rare beacause this habitat is not natural, a case of the horse driving the cart on policy.

The fact that Hartlebury is isolated shows what a insignificant anomally it is. It's a joke, on the WCC website they seriously claim that "Malvern Hills is the only place where this moth exists. Wyre forest is the only place to find this butterfly" It is an insult to peoples intteligence and misleading. It is this sort of nonsense that exposes the barefaced deceptions and lack of common sense. These species exist also in pockets of countryside not accessible to anyone. I have a friend a farmer. He has the biggest herd of rare breeds cattle in the midlnds 600. He has created pools, marsh and bog on land around his farm. He is a keen naturalist and unsung hero. There are a lot of farmers like him and land owners. There are also areas of farm land and countryside that are inaccesible.

Efforts should be concentrated on areas which have an natural inclination to be heath, if there are any. You make the succession by trees sound as if it is toxic algae bloom, or some freak of nature taking place.

With a population of over 100 species of bees, does it not strike you as something of a success since the common has been so woefully neglected.

Work that is being carried out is already damaging. The extremeley unstable sand - soil is being eroded by rains and wind.

An area adjacent to Pooland Nursery was cleared of trees in an experiment orchestrated by Liz Nether of WCC to show how heather would colonise the area. The trouble was that it also an area which had a large number of common lizards. I know because I would sit with my children and photograph them. Since the clearing work, no heather and the lizards have dissapeared.

The common exists as a diverse, interdependent ecosystem, the argument is that the nunbers of the rare so called heathland species can be scaled up by orchestrated enviroment bias. This justifies this carnage

This work is carried out beacuse of the money on offer from the goverment who in turn recieve it from Life+ nature, the cash clearing house working within the framework of the The Rio de Janeiro Convention on biological diversity.

You can read the wording of the document here http://www.cbd.int/convention/text/

The Rio conference dealt mostly with the burden placed on nature by extraction of natural resourses and humankinds imposition generally creating monosystems. So therefore, the aim of restoration to re-inhabite and restore enviroments and to maintain bio diversity is subsequent to the above.

Reading the document, whilst it does not specifically prohibit what is being done to places like Hartlebury Common, I can see with all the incentives on offer, why a goverment could be keen to exploit loopholes. I believe that the true spirit of the Rio accord has been deliberatley misinterpretated and the whole case for creating an unatural enviroment is stretching the imagination somewhat. I beleive it is a cynical excercise where the welfare of the whole mechanism is more cared for than the countryside it is supposed to protect. I belive that money and jobs are the reason for this work and that people have become mesmerised by this "Fashion"

Apart from that, the enclosure IS illegal, but dont take my word for it, have a look at this but I suspect you already have

http://oss.panther.webexpectations.net/concern-about-hartlebury-common-fencing-plan-%E2%80%93-7-january-2009concern-about-hartlebury-common-fencing-plan-%E2%80%93-7-january-2009/



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

I believe the literal wording of the statement means bio diversity as indiginous to our countries and NATURAL to those places.



Steve McCarron



Guest

#395

2011-06-29 13:10

Why are you deleting posts? What did they say?
Steve McCarron

#396 soil erosion

2011-06-29 14:32

We visited the common last night we walked up from poolands nursery.
As usual, there were land rover tracks up the sandy path. This path has become noticebly wider and deeper recentley. At the sides, evidence of serious erosion is evident where gorse has been removed, one of the few inland plants capable of holding sandy light strata together. As a consequence, the form of the landscape is changing as it acceeds to, rain, wind,pedestrian, traffic and motor vehicles. This process will be also accelerated by proposed grazing

 

 

http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x395/stevemac2/dumpsoil.jpg?t=1309637033...

In this picture  you can see the stumps of gorse at the top which have been removed. This strata has collapsed as a consequence, the ground is drying out. A work party has tipped a trailer of soil on this spot in vain. The soil to add insult is top soil scraped from other areas of the site as part of the management process.  The soil structure has broken down and the disintergration is well under way as a consequenece. Gorse which is being removed elsewhere also,  is one of the few plants that will lock together this loose sandy soil in these conditions.


At the top of the path from poolands we walked around the birch, brash that had been laid over damaged areas and towards the iron age archaelogical site. We walked up the slope at the back and noticed recent soil eroision caused by rain, it looks like lava flow that has frozen, with a hole at it's source on the back of the sites circular enclosure.

Adjacent to this area are the ww2 pipes which supplied an army camp. The whole area here is severley under threat. The extreme dry spells and sudden torential rainfall have changed this area most significantley, there are areas of heather that are being undermined by this erosion. There is an oak tree that is being seriously undermined. Generally, the removal of gorse has had a negative effect on this as it has elsewhere.

The attempts to shore up this decline with brash- birch branches are not suceeding as the sand lef beneath simply blows away and continues to erode. Birch disintergrates quite readily anyaway and breaks down to fast to do any good. This form of management does work elswhere but is innapropraite here.

Hartlebury commons group have supplied what they call evidence of tree succession on the lower terrace. However, the earlier tucker photo is an ariel view, whereas the comparitive recent photo is taken from ground level accross the terrace. That is why the arial picture shows more open space. I used an extending camera mount and took a picture just eight feet above where I was standing and from the same vantage point. In my picture there is a lot more open space and paths visible though. If I had the benefit of an arial view, the same as Tuckers I do not think the comparison would be so dramatic. This arial photo of the common was taken in 2007

 

http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x395/stevemac2/arielviewofcommon.jpg...


Elsewhere we noticed heather growing natrually through grassy areas, away from the managed areas. Astonishingly, between the pine plantation and the decidious plantations at the south end there is a moss carpet. This will only grow in the most stable of conditions. Light, shade, moisture, sunlight. It indicates a sustainable enviromenet and its growth is accepted as an indicator of such. This will not survive the changes proposed at the common. Generally mosses thrive in shady, cool, moist but well drained enviroments, a testament to nature at this site given this is at the highest part of the common on the top terrace.

The creation of a heavily dependant, unsustainable artificial at hartlebury common is a mistake as there are excellent interdependances and an enclosed viable eco system at present. To claim that it is justified because mans impact is widespread on the landscape is not a cogent excuse. There are many interevntions and acts that man has committed on the enviroment historicaly but that in is not a scientific argument for these works. Niether is the argument for so called bio diversity when in fact the opposite will be the outcome.

I have published  photos which show clearly the damage being done use this link to see for yourself

http://s1179.photobucket.com/albums/x395/stevemac2/

 

 

Best wishes, Steve


Guest

#397

2011-06-29 19:50

The land rover wouldn't of got up there if you'd of left the fence and gate alone so that's your own fault

This post has been removed by its writer (Show details)

2011-06-29 21:02


A worried stourport resident

#399 Re: soil erosion

2011-06-29 21:03

#396: Steve McCarron - soil erosion 

 Why have you deleted lots of the posts

Steve McCarron

#400 the common is dissolving

2011-06-29 21:06

Pictures of hartlebury common.
Jun 29, 2011, 21:02

To anyone interested I have a page of pics and text which is of interest to anyone who objects to the inept conversion of our public space. The pictures should worry Stourport residents and all of us who love the common. The posts had to come out because they were illegal.

http://s1179.photobucket.com/albums/x395/stevemac2/