Hands Off Hartlebury Common

#108: -

Thank for your considered reply.

It serves no one to leave comments that are offensive and not constuctive in a debate. Comments that are not related to the topic but are personally insulting.

WCC themselves stated that the common has not been managed or grazed for 100 years. Heathland is not just formed by grazing, it occurs quite natrually in the correct enviroments. I discussed this topic with Francis Flanagan of Natural England. He could not explain why there are open areas that trees have not and will not colonise and the same for the heather. Heather is appearing on the site as new growth but not were there has been recent "management"

There has not been any significant grazing that can explain the commons current condition other than it has created it's own equelibriam. My view and others is that it is a mistake to rebuke this natural, evolved enviroment and create an entireley artificial one. The only benefit of such interference is to those who wish to artificially maintain these spaces. The ecological argument made by Natural England has no foundation in truth and I have yet to be challenged on my opinions scientifically.

Back burning was a way of having controlled fires instead of un-controlled fires on heathland, now banned, supposedley 33 cattle on a 200 acre site will do this job. Heathland is a similar monoculture to pine forests which are also  liable to fast spreading, uncontrolled fires. The Dorset wildlife trust lost 1/3rd of it's heathland subsequent to a programme of works as at Hartlebury. Amongst the victims of the fire were deer caught up in the  flames and roasted alive. Their grazing was probarly insuficient. Steve Davis of the Dorset wildlife trust said

"The fire has set us back 20-25 years".

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/9078840.Upton_heath_fire_latest__Morning_reveals_extent_of_arson_damage/

This is not in isolation, here

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/2011/05/04/strong-winds-fan-heathland-fires-115875-23106034/

and here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-11165970

and here

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/gwentnews/9005239.Record_dry_spell_fuels_heath_blazes/

The common theme here is heathland, not forest fires. Fires will develop from to scrub to forest. Not the other way around. Increase heathaland, you increase the risk, it's fairly simple. If you would like to meet me and have a walk around the common I have a ground moisture probe. I can show you that there is sustantially more moisture adjacent and under all the trees of Hartlebury Common than elsewhere.

To say that there is less moisture under trees because the root systems drain the soil is untrue based on my findings. The average moisture count is at least 4-5 times greater under tree canopy with either succulent grasses and or dampleaf mulch.

The attitudes to silver birch are subjective, however thay have a place in our landscape and rhere presence at Hartlebury has not resulted in them dominating the landscape or outgrowing the much slower oaks, again contrary to the information we are being given.

I and others are appearing at the county court, kidderminster, Wednesday, 6th of July at 12.30

If you wish to attend you will see that the council DO NOT own hartlebury common. This is just one of many lies, frauds and deceptions they have made to insure that this scheme goes ahead at all costs.

That is why the injuction against us only restricts our further removal of the fencing, nothing else, no restriction of access to Hartlebury Common, nothing. The council are lying about every aspect of this scheme to everybody. The council are in fact in contravention of prosecutable offences subject to their interference. Even if they did own the common they are in still in serious dereliction of there responsibilities and have broken the law. I have been contacted by Tom Pollard from WCC who falsley claimed that WCC owned the common when he was notified of our intention to start removing the fencing, I have that document in my possesion, yet another fraudulant claim, this time from WCC's legal representative

Not because of ecology but because when they create these frankenstien monsters of habitat, they have to be maintained like that forever.

This is part of a message I sent to Liz Nether

"I would like Liz Nether, Countryside Sites Team Leader of Worcester County Council, to declare how she is fulfilling Articles 8 and 9 of the CBD as set out below and also how she proposes to handle the soil erosion which is already accelerating on the Common. Laying cut birch and tasking rangers to relocate trailers of earth is laughable if it was not so sad and illegal. A member of the public, and others have noticed the decline and erosion and mentioned it too me whilst I was being interviewed this morning by the BBC"

The work is not even being carried out in acordance witht the Rio accord where the funds derive from, which states.

"For the sustainable preservation of natural enviroments and natural habitat in there natural places"

I have over 30 years PRACTICAL experience in conservation and restoration. I can spot a cash junket from a mile away, the welfare of the common has nothing to do with this plan

Steve McCarron