Surrey Wildlife Trust Fencing Proposals

Thursley, Elstead, Ockley, Royal & Bagmoor Commons

Surrey Wildlife Trust Fencing Proposals

Proposed Fence Bridleways Footpaths

This section presents information about the Surrey Wildlife Trust and Natural England proposals in 2010 to fence the whole of the local Commons area for grazing, apart from Hankley Common. This led to very strong local opposition and it was eventually dropped after a long campaign. Short term grazing of belted Galloway catle is now carried out from time to time in enclosures to control the spread of grass on the preserved heathland.

It includes links to Surrey Wildlife Trust reports and other supporting documents, as well as views expressed by opponents of the scheme.

Click on any heading:

Royal Enclosure (Where the cattle are now)

SWT Consultation (official publc consultation 2010/11)

SWT Phase 2 plans for the commons (2011)

SWT Supporters (comments from the survey and direct to ELSTEAD NEWS)

Commons Assessment (Natural England - Elstead & Royal Commons)

Heathland restoration at Thursley Common, Surrey

SWT Belted Galloway Herd

Cattle return to Barossa Common

Belted Galloways (general information on the cattle)

Cattle Safety (Health & Safety Executive) + Ballet for Cows & Police cars (USA)

TERRACE v SWT (about the TERRACE group opposition to the SWT proposals.

Pirbright gates (Cemetary Pales main road self closing gates)

Horse injuries (Pictures not for the squeamish)

Cattle on Old Dean (Barossa) Common in Camberley – A witness at the Chobham Common Enquiry.

Message from Jeremy Hunt MP

An objection to the fencing of Chobham Common for grazing

Commons Q & A (a compilation of questions and answers from various sources)

OPINION SURVEY (the local unofficial survey)

SURVEY RESULTS (to the end of August)

Cattle return to Barossa Common

Following three incidents involving pedestrians and cattle on Barossa Common, reported to SWT in 2011 the cattle were removed. The incidents were believed to have been caused by local youths pestering the cattle. The cattle have now been returned to the common after a local campaign by SWT to reduce the likelihood of further incidents. For more information go to: http://www.surreywildlifetrust.org/news/267 . The article on the SWT website includes instructions on what to do if cattle become curious and approach you, or in the unlikely event that they chase you or your dog.

Heathland restoration at Thursley Common, Surrey

This project is led by Plantlife and supported by SITA, Natural England and Surrey Wildlife Trust who provided the survey information highlighting the need for this plant conservation work.

Heathland plant species have severely declined over the last century, notable species associated with damp open conditions. Such a decline was observed on Thursley Common, an area of heathland in Guildford, Surrey, a National Nature Reserve noted for a range of species as well as rare invertebrates and interesting birds not often seen.

What’s the problem?

Even though the area was well managed, marsh clubmoss and brown beaked sedge were struggling and reducing in number. One possible reason for the decline is a lack of grazing to keep areas open and increased pollution which impacts on nutrient levels, indicated by the build-up of nutrient loving plants, such as Purple Moor-grass recorded at this site. This project has been set up to reverse the trend of rare species decline building on successful conservation techniques tested on other heathland sites.

How are we going about it?

There are a range of techniques being utilised at this site which combine to mimic past land management practices and even hark back to times when large creatures such as aurochs trampled the earth.

Areas of scrub have been cleared using bull dozers to create areas of open scrapes suited to the rare species. Cattle have also been brought onto certain areas and contained by new fencing ensuring they break up the surface and open up bare ground for the new growth to take hold in.

What do we want the outcome to be?

We are hoping to see signs of new growth of both marsh clubmoss and brown beaked sedge in the cleared areas in 2012, a year after the land is cleared.

Key activity dates

The project is running from 2011 through to 2012. The scrapes have been dug in the autumn and winter months which will be followed by surveys to establish the impact on species populations.

How can you help?

We ask that the public understand that the primary purpose of our work is to conserve the threatened wild plants. The fencing and somewhat dramatic land clearance have been designed to protect the plants we’re trying to conserve so whilst we appreciate they can be a temporary nuisance we hope the longer term conservation goals are appreciated and supported. The cleared land will colonise, hopefully including our specific species, and will once again blend into the surrounding landscape.

Message from Jeremy Hunt MP

Thank you for your e-mail outlining the issues surrounding the proposed grazing plan on Thursley, Elstead and Royal Commons. Councillor Jenny Else has also been keeping me up to date with the current feelings of the local residents.

I am most concerned that these proposals might restrict access to the Commons for any member of the public due to potential safety issues. I have read with interest the ongoing discussions between Surrey Wildlife Trust and users of the Surrey commons regarding Surrey Wildlife Trust’s proposed conservation plan. I understand the majority of the concerns relate to the intention to use perimeter fencing to allow loose Belted Galloway cattle to roam the whole area of the Commons and to install self-closing bridleway gates.

Several of my constituents have brought to my attention the impact that not being able to avoid the free ranging cattle could have on vulnerable members of the public and horse riders. I realise it may be a particular problem for the elderly, the disabled, walkers with dogs and parents with small children. There is also a strong voice that although access to the Commons would not be restricted by the fencing itself, the current proposed self-closing bridleway gates have been shown cause problems for horse riders.

I understand that at the recent presentation at Elstead Parish Council Meeting by Charlotte Williams on behalf of Surrey Wildlife Trust, it was explained that Surrey Wildlife Trust is aware that the gates can cause accidents, but that this was generally due to poor installation. I am pleased to learn that a new design of slower closing hydraulic gate is being looked at.

I will continue to monitor the situation and have written to Surrey Wildlife Trust to ensure they are fully aware of the views of my constituents before any decisions are made.

An objection to the fencing of Chobham Common for grazing.

Regarding the “Application by Surrey Wildlife Trust To Carry Out Work On Chobham Common,Surrey– PINS Ref COM 231” and the “Applicant’s Statement of Case dated 5th March 2012” I submit to you the following objections:

The powers invested in SWT by SCC, and in Natural England by the government, are biased in favour of wild life restoration and conservation to the exclusion of the rights of people. They did not include a like duty that SWT and Natural England should balance their duty to achieve their wildlife objectives with such existing rights as the public then enjoyed. The ultimate objective of SWT and NE is, having (they hope) shown that a slight improvement of their inherently ‘slow’ method of proceeding (namely, cattle) justifies a second 4-year term of temporary internal fencing, and then a third…that then, permanent perimeter fencing will take its place. In the Statement, there are two consequences of the-rights-of-humans failing: (i) There was a Planning Inspector’s ruling 12 or so years ago (when there was an attempt to erect perimeter fencing around the Common for the purpose of restraining cattle) yet this is been ignored as being not part of SWT’s and NE’s duties. That ruling was that such fencing was illegal as it destroyed the openness and unbounded nature of the Common and thus destroyed the almost unique psychological, that is to say the spiritual, experience the public had of the Common, which enjoyment by the public is what SCC had acquired the Common from Lord Onslow expressly for; (ii) the use, in SWT’s Statement of Case, of the term ‘access’ in the sense only of the freedom to walk and ride in future, where before there had been dense bracken, scrub or trees, or discomforting tussocks of Molinia grass – because it would have been cleared – rather than in the sense intended by the court which was to do with being free to walk onto it at almost any point, and to be free of the sight of an end or barrier to it when approaching it or wandering on it.
The Statement of Case is deceitful in referring to the ending of grazing in past times being responsible for the deterioration of the Common. It even goes so far as to say that since the Common was created by grazing cattle, only grazing cattle can restore it. SWT and NE both know that the impoverished soil of the Common came about, and was maintained as impoverished, by exploitation of the Common by cutting turf for fires and roofs; by cutting gorse for fires and especially for the kilns in the local brick making industry; by the cutting and removal of trees as timber; by the enormous industry of heather harvesting for brooms (Chobham Common supplying brooms for the navy for years); as well as seasonal grazing. It is the ending over time of all these activities which is the basic reason the soil is gradually being enriched thus changing the kind of growth, and the kinds of plants, and thus the kinds of animal, bird, and insect it is a suitable home for. And SWT has argued so far for the full battery of procedures mimicking these exploitative customs of the past as the way to restore and preserve the impoverished nature of the soil of lowland heath such as Chobham Common.
My argument is a combination of point (1) and point (2). SWT and NE should be under a duty to balance the restoration and conservation of Chobham Common’s rare and precious wildlife habitat with an equal duty to honour and preserve the Common’s unbounded, unrestricted spiritual human environment which depends on the beauty and variety of its wildlife in part but also, and almost uniquely, on its unbounded and unrestricted nature.
The absence of exploitative activity is, however, only part of the causes of enrichment of the soil. Another is the beginning of, and growth of, the distribution of air-borne vehicle exhausts over the Common. Any overall plan to restore and conserve an impoverished soil has to tackle this source of enrichment. Yet for all their talk, no plans are being talked of. Indeed, it seems quite beyond the competence of an organization specialising in wildlife. What they are doing is analogous to keeping passengers off more and more sections of the deck of the Titanic so they can make some repairs and re-treat it with preservative. The problem needs a much more radical approach, more science concerning the relationship of air quality to the proximity of vehicles to the Common, and more determination to involve measures restricting and confining traffic near lowland heath. This is no different in principle from the separation of vehicles and people in selected areas for the protection of what we are determined to protect. I make no detailed suggestions here: I mention the point only because it indicates the shallowness of the claimed concern for the quality of lowland heath that one of the biggest causes of deterioration is not being tackled or discussed; and that the proper bodies to get involved in the matter are not involved.
During discussions with local members of the public, and with local organisations of such people with years of experience of the common and of its use and care, an additional technique for dealing with the plant invasion which cattle are supposed to be being introduced to deal with was brought to light. This was a technique used in Derbyshire of poisoning and burning the Molinia grass at the appropriate season and replanting (or seeding) with heather. The local societies agreed to the grazing trial, with temporary fencing in place of the permanent fencing planned, on the understanding that a trial of the method would be conducted on Chobham Common at the same time. We understand that an executive of EN had said that such a trial could go ahead. It didn’t. And now SWT are describing the proposal of this technique as ‘inchoate’, as ‘not fully-formulated, not fully formed’; and saying with undisguised disdain, that if some other qualified body were to get the proposal into a properly formulated and respectable condition – and it must be a body that was capable of itself conducting the trial – then such a trial would be considered but would of course be subject to the judgements of such procedures as are the received wisdom in conservation circles. That is seen as a betrayal, as bad faith. It makes the protestations of good intent appear hypocritical, and their argument special pleading. This is a serious matter. Those who care want to get it right. It should not be decided by who is the better deceiver or the more powerful definer of what is good and what is not. The technique is sound and needs a trial in Chobham before any more fencing for more cattle is introduced.
This question of the received wisdom in conservation circles is no small matter. It is customary for there to be such received wisdom. It seems hardly possible to get a consensus without that consensus becoming at once a dogma forbidding all further introduction of thinking. It is almost a matter of loyalty or even becomes so much taken for granted that people affected become incapable of conceiving of its not being necessarily right all the time everywhere – a sort of “of-course” reaction is met with, such as you would get if you asked someone “You mean to say you eat with a knife and fork?” Is this what causes the Statement of Case to say that grazing is vital to their program of restoration, and not only that, to say that all the other techniques in their battery of techniques cannot be deployed unless first grazing is put into widespread use. Or is it, since they have hitherto always said that grazing was just one of a number of techniques, each appropriate in different places and circumstances, more a case of spin and deceit than of self-deception?
Self-deception rather than deceit of others is, I think, what accounts for the probable blindness of SWT and the certain blindness of NE to the failures of the grazing technique. Since different techniques are for different circumstances it must be the case that once in a while a technique is thought to be just possibly the right one but it turns out not to be. How else would one have discovered that different treatments suit different cases? But we find the arguments in the Statement of Case make no reference to failures which are discoverable if one is determined; and the SWT and NE have always pooh-poohed any talk of failures being significant or the fault of grazing. There is a kind of tyranny in the uniformity of public front in the conservation business. It is like the received wisdom of tower block building (which obviously addressed the question of housing merely as housing but was later to be seen as failing to address the need for neighbours, play areas, overseeing of spaces, security, community); or of tonsillitis surgery which was once little less than automatic, but not now (though gluey ears took its place – same surgeons, surprise-surprise!)
Tyranny is notable in the repeated remark in the Statement of Case that the fencing is vital to the grazing, and the grazing to the restoration, and that if the inquiry rejects it NE has the authority to devise a plan and put it into effect regardless, and to make the objectors pay. No group couching its argument in such terms is serious in its apparent consultations. Nor is it fair justice that taxpayers’ money can be spent by such an organisation in order to give it seemingly democratic justification when (i) the opponents they pretend to allow a voice to cannot possibly afford the costs of representation; and (ii) the complicit “of-course” stance of all the bodies arrayed on their side have already made their (I will not say ‘mind’ up) their decision.

Additional Comments by Adrian Ince

appended to his original postal representation

when it was read out by him at the Inquiry

The decision by the Planning Inspector in 1998 to refuse permission was accepted by the Secretary of State but English Nature (now Natural England) was:

“…extremely disappointed with the decision which has allowed the management of this internationally important wildlife site to take second place to misplaced fears about accessibility and appearance.”

I think the applicants would feel the same today – and, indeed, do feel the same today. They think it’s about accessibility and appearance; and that the fears are misplaced. The reason for their candid astonishment that their plans are opposed is that they think their plans will enhance accessibility, and that the ‘air and exercise’ for the public which they have to preserve along with their restoration and conservation measures, will be all the greater for the clearance of scrub, bracken, invasive gorse, silver birch and tussocky Molinia allowing access to, and enjoyment of, parts of the Common more or less unusable or unenjoyable at present.

They don’t get it. And they don’t get it because they haven’t been told properly, plainly, or often enough. What we want is the piercingly magical liberation you experience on entering this unbounded wilderness – an experience variously of delight and joy; of refreshment and calm and release; and of – not recreation, for that word seems, now anyway, to trivialise it – but of re-creation. It’s not access in the sense the applicants mean – being able to get about over more of it. It’s the quality of the experience one is entering into.

Physical things facilitate or inhibit experiences – they can turn you on or turn you off. Entry by a gate 100 yds up there , or there’s another one 200yds that way is a turn off. We want to feel we are releasing ourselves into the wild again. We don’t want to feel allowed. And certainly not allowed into an enclosure.

That’s what users want. It’s what they’ve had and they want to keep it. You can have a pleasant time on a fenced common. You can go there to enjoy the grazing cattle or ponies. But that’s a different pleasure. It’s not the same oceanic feeling you can get on Chobham Common. That can be spoilt by lots of developments: e.g. by wind turbines, by a golf course, by perimeter fencing, by even fenced enclosures, all of which destroy the sense of wildness.

What I say to you now is that, when the applicants are required to balance their use of techniques with the public enjoyment of the Common, it is this oceanic enjoyment that is referred to. You have to compromise with that. It’s like freedom of speech – you can’t get away with letting only people who agree with you have that freedom. We all want something done – no one is arguing for doing nothing. When I came to Chobham in 1960 to live in a house on the Common itself and bring up our children there, the view from Staple Hill Road was totally unimpeded – no gorse edging the road blocking one’s view; hardly a tree; lots of rabbits eating the young shoots; nearly a traditional ‘blasted’ heath. I crave a return to that condition. We had no idea then, of course, that in and below and behind that superficially-visible landscape was such a rich diversity of interlocking living forms. Yes, we want the restoring of the wildlife sanctuary there, but one that is also a human sanctuary. I beg you to see and to understand that the difficult task you have before you is much more difficult than even you thought, for you have to do all you want to do for wildlife while not undoing what exists for humans – a sanctuary for the maximum welfare of all life forms, including you and me. And you and me, we need our spiritual-renewal environment. We accept most, if not all but one, of your range of techniques, but we don’t want fencing because it destroys the unique experience available here. And we expect you to adopt, in place of grazing, an alternative method which you find inferior – and which may well be inferior for all I know – as your accommodation to the unique quality of open air wilderness the Common provides.

That is why the Derbyshire method is relevant. That is why you should be conducting a small trial as recommended by Mr Eyre. In that regard, I think it likely that too much is made of collateral damage. All burning and scraping and turfing and scrub clearance did and do entail collateral damage to individual plants and bugs, but nature recovers. [And it often recovers better when left to get on with it as was the case after the Great Storm which felled so many trees.] The more you learn of the micro world and its miraculous interrelationships, the more you want to micro manage everything, and the more you find people a confounded nuisance on the Common at all, sometimes.

They are also a confounded nuisance to have to consult with. But you are required to accommodate their opinions and their needs, and their opinions of their needs – or at least to accommodate to their opinions and needs, and their opinion of their needs. You cannot merely tolerate those you like or who agree with you. You have to accommodate to me, and people like me. And in this regard, as human beings, you are like me too.

“Progress is least likely when one interest in a common attempts to sideline the others or forces change upon them”: one of the Golden Rules from A Common Purpose, sponsored with others by NE in 2005.

The Ramblers statement on the local commons

The Ramblers do not oppose the proposals by Surrey Wild Life Trust for cattle grazing on Thursley/ Elstead/Royal/Ockley/Bagmoor Commons and perimeter fencing provided that all Rights of Way continue to be fully maintained and Access land remains open for public use.

D. H.Holmes

Ramblers Footpath Secretary / Surrey Area Publicity Officer

5. May 2012

Belted Galloway cattle

http://www.maydencroftfarm.com/project-details/60/108/12356/Breed-Profiles/Cattle/Belted-Galloway.htm

Summary

Extremely hardy and adaptable to a wide range of habitats and environmental conditions, the Belted Galloway has proven value for both conservation and commercial use. A gentle, placid nature and attractive appearance makes the Belted Galloway a very useful animal for grazing sites with public access.

Hardiness: a very hardy breed, particularly useful in wet climates and in year-round grazing situations.

Extremely tolerant of wet weather – has a thick mossy undercoat & long wavy overcoat that sheds rain, enabling it to graze contentedly through the wettest weather.
Prefer to winter out-of-doors – not ideally suited to being housed during winter months and unlikely to grow a winter coat in this situation.
Supplementary feed – fares well on coarse grasses even during winter and may only need minimal amounts of hay or concentrate.

Physical Attributes & Husbandry: a good allround breed of cattle, which is placid, easy to handle and of good general health.

Handling – generally docile and easy to handle. Even animals in semi-feral situations quickly become used to handling if their circumstances change. Some individuals may have a tendency to kick. A polled breed.
Sure-footed – is particularly adept at grazing on steep slopes without causing poaching or erosion damage. Flatter areas are necessary for resting and ruminating.
Containment – standard stock fencing is ideal, but will respect electric fencing provided they are not short of keep and there is a strong charge.
Insects – not particularly susceptible to flies and ticks.
Breeding – good, milky mothers.
General health – very good. Cows will usually live at least 10-12 years.
Size – medium build, average weight of a cow 500-600 kg.
Appearance - an attractive breed with a broad white belt around its otherwise black or dun body and is classified as a Minority Breed by the Rare Breeds Survival Trust.

Grazing Characteristics: adaptable to grazing and browsing a great range of species and habitats.

Preferences – not particularly selective. Appears to take a wide range of grasses, shrubs and coarse herbs.
Browsing – appears to take a wide range of shrub species. See table overleaf detailing sites where the breed has been used.
Grazing – see table overleaf for site-specific information.

Interaction with the Public: a gentle animal with high aesthetic appeal.

Placid nature – placid, gentle nature and unusual markings are helpful in achieving local support in potentially controversial grazing schemes (see example in site table overleaf).
Temperament in breeding situations – not such strong mothering instincts as the Galloway and so not as likely to be over-protective of calves. However, calving may best be avoided on well visited sites. Bulls very placid in a herd situation.
Curiosity – generally oblivious to visitors and unlikely to take any notice of walkers or dogs on a site.

Marketability: a breed with great possibilities for both conservation and commercial viability.

Commercial value – able to produce tasty, lean meat off rough grazing. Fattening on improved grassland to finish within 30 months may be necessary.

Surrey Wildlife Trust Galloway Herd

The SWT herd of belted galloway’s has grown from just 3 animals in 2007 to 243 in June 2011.

SWT was able to obtain funding from the Higher Level Scheme and a considerable sum was also raised by a membership appeal from SWT members. These funds have allowed SWT to expand its herd to become one of the largest and increasingly best equipped conservation graziers in the UK.

With the help of Surrey County Council SWT has restored the completely dilapidated small farm called Pond Farm. As the pictures show it was just a shell with a few fallen down wooden horse stables in 2004. The main barn has been restored into a fantastic agricultural office to house the grazing team, whilst the fields are now well fenced and have mains water installed. There is also an impressive handling system to manage the herd.

Pond_farm_barn_refurb_james_adler

SWT employs a team of 5 to directly manage the conservation grazing on over 2200ha and to provide livestock to other parts of the estate. This includes a full time stockman with over 40 year’s experience.

The cows are grazing a large number of SWT and partner reserves. The full list at present is:

Ash Ranges
Folly Bog
Wisley Common
The Whitmoor Group of Commons
Chobham Common
Manor Farm
Thundry Meadow
Royal & Bagmoor Commons
Thursley Common (working with Natural England)
Howell Hill
Dawcombe
Norbury Park
Hackhurst
Albury Downs
Newdigate
Horsell Common (working with the Surrey Heathland Project & the Horsell Common Preservation Society)
Prey, Smarts, Brookwood & Sheets Heaths (working with the Surrey Heathland Project & Woking Borough Council)
Holmbury St. Mary (working with University College London)
Staines Moor (grazing parts of the moor with Spelthorne Borough Council & the Moormasters)

SWT have seen fantastic results on many of the reserves since the reintroduction of these animals. Scrub has been devoured and beautiful mosaics of vegetation created. Species have appeared which have not been recorded on sites before, such as the yellow hairy dung flies, plus numbers of some threatened species have increased. The best example is Surrey’s sole colony of Bog Hair Grass which was down to just a few plants in 2005. There are now over 30 plants following a couple of years of livestock grazing.

SWT has been studying flora, reptiles, small mammals and bird populations on key sites to see how they respond to grazing.

GPS tracking collars are used on SWT’s cattle. These are carried by the lead animals and allow SWT to monitor the herd’s use of an area. Their movements can easily be tracked which enables SWT to focus on monitoring the patches where they spend most of their time. SWT are at the cutting edge of the use of these systems.

SWT is very lucky to have over 50 volunteer livestock checkers (lookers) to help check and care for the animals across the county. Encouragingly, the grazing team and lookers receive many positive comments from the public about the cattle, who enjoy seeing them out in the countryside.

The grazing team have also helped SWT win awards for their educational work at agricultural shows.

To get involved with this important project, please contact:

James Adler, The Grazing Team
	School Lane, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey, GU24 0JN
	james.adler@surreywt.org.uk

Elstead Facebook discussion - April 2012

Paul McLaughlin I believe this is to permit the free grazing of cattle. So far as I know the commons will still be just as accessible to everyone.

Dawn Davidsen No they won't be. There's a good description of the issues here - http://www.surreycommunity.info/terraceaction/

There are already notices up about having dogs on leads for 6 months of the year, despite during the consultation assurances to the contrary.

Sue Gowar Answering Paul's comment, a local farmer has commented that it is unrealistic to free graze cattle where members of the public are walking/riding etc - cattle can become very aggressive, not just when they have their young with them, if they take a dislike to say a dog - the dog runs back to the owner and the cow or cows give chase. Can you imagine pushing a small child in a pushchair and suddenly having a cow decide it doesn't like you, or your dog, or possibly the pushchair - I don't think it bears thinking about. SWT tell me that between 1996 and 2006 there were only 46 incidents of cows attacking members of the public - if you look online, you will find there have been a lot of incidents since 1996, including one where David Blunkett was attacked and had ribs broken. In my opinion I think SWT are just trying to dissuade the public from using these Commons by grazing the cattle and installing the extremely dangerous automatic horse gates. I have written to Jeremy Hunt who is apparently taking an interest in this and I would urge others to do the same please

Dawn Davidsen Absolutely Sue, when my girls were little, we were charged at by cattle - supposedly docile as we were on a right of way - but something spooked them and it was terrifying. Fortunately we reached the stile in time, but if we'd had a pushchair it would have been a different story.

Andrew Rayner Indeed - one should not get too close to a herd of cows. No telling what they will do especially in the spring.

Kathryn Brooke Wow. No idea cows were such a menace! Letter on the way to JH. jeremy.hunt.mp@parliament.uk
Meanwhile, here's some good advice if charged:
http://rickrideshorses.hubpages.com/hub/How-to-scare-cows-to-avoid-being-trampled-to-death

Dawn Davidsen Introducing this will effectively mean people will no longer be able to walk with their dogs and children on the common. If you have your dog on the lead, the cattle could charge at you, and if it's off the lead, it's even more likely to antagonise them. Most people walk their dogs on the commons (as opposed to parks etc) because they need proper exercise, which means off the lead.

Betty Moxon Hi guys. We have walked for many miles with dogs and children in cattle country and occasionally have had problems when there were bulls, young animals or restricted spaces. We have never had any problem with the freeranging ponies or cattle on the Hindhead Commons, or with the belted galloways on the North Downs Way. Generally the breeds chosen for rough grazing are native and placid, and they are not breeding herds so they are low risk. I was going to finish by asking if anyone knew of problems with conservation grazing animals (as opposed to flighty young friesians in a field!)

Paul McLaughlin I am genuinely sympathetic to the plight riders and dog walkers. I am neither but I do run and walk in all sorts of countryside and am an advocate of free access generally. The only problems I've ever had with cattle are coming across Frisian bullocks (young males) on farmland when they're feeling twitchy. Whenever I'm in the Devil's punchbowl or elsewhere in Hindhead commons the Highland Cooos and ponies that freely graze there not only ignore me and other users but an absolute pleasure to be amongst. I would hate to see them in paddocks, despoiling the common and restricting my access to them. I feel I'm coming across as anti rider/dog walker, that's honestly not the case. I do think it's a shame that well behaved dogs are apparently already required to be on leads but it seems as if it's a separate issue to the grazing.

Cattle on Old Dean (Barossa) Common in Camberley – A witness at the Chobham Common Enquiry.

In April last year ,Surrey Wildlife Trust started fencing in the Common with the intention of initially grazing 10 Belted Galloway cattle, and then gradually expanding the herd size to 80 plus. There was no public consultation before they erected the fence and gates, and in fact they only held a few early afternoon meetings on the Common after the work was completed. The only people who could possibly attend these meetings, were either part time workers like myself or unemployed and retired people. James Adler represented SWT and he assured me that the 10 cattle would be placid, and he doubted if I would even see them that often. As I know absolutely nothing about cattle I took his word as gospel.

Whilst the fence was being erected the cattle were being held in the firing range behind Sandhurst Army College, so I took this opportunity to get my 2 German Pointer dogs used to them, the eldest wasn’t interested in them at all, but the youngest showed signs of being nervous, so I deliberately sat her by the fence on several occasions and rewarded her when she ignored them.

I returned from my holiday on the 12^th of June and still the cattle hadn’t been released out on to Old Dean Common. Approximately 1 week later they were, and initially I only saw them from afar, so no problems. However, early one morning I saw them ahead of me on the track towards the back of the Common, I clipped both of my dogs on to their leads and stood away from the track with the dogs sitting quietly beside me, and waited for the cattle to pass me by. To my horror, when the first 3 cattle caught sight of me they started charging, luckily there was a ditch behind me, so I leapt over with the dogs still on the leads, and ran off between the trees to escape. The cattle may be small but when they are charging at you it is quite terrifying, and all I could think about for the next few days was, WHAT IF IT HAD BEEN ONE OF THE ELDERLY PEOPLE OR ONE OF THE ARMY WIVES,who I see regularly walking on the Common pushing buggies, with babies and toddlers at their sides, plus various dogs of differing levels of fitness and age, HOW ON EARTH WOULD THEY POSSIBLY ESCAPE!

I am sure the outcome would be either serious injury or death.

I also heard from the other Common users that there had been an incident between the cattle and someone, where they had been chased. So my blood ran from cold to hot when I saw an article in The Camberley News from Surrey Wildlife Trust, saying that the poor docile cattle were being tormented by the youth of The Old Dean Estate, and because of this, and not because of the incident, that they were removing the cattle and putting them back in to the firing range for their own safety.

I don’t condone this behaviour by the youth at all, but surely Surrey Wildlife Trust must have been aware of the level of anti social behaviour that goes with the Old Dean Estate, when they did the risk assessment beforehand. This was actually confirmed to me by Surrey Wildlife Trust’s Mark Pearson, who said because of the problems, they had deliberately put their most docile cattle out. So if these docile cattle can go from placid to aggressive in the space of 1 month, then surely this just illustrates that cattle are not suitable animals to have wandering freely if they have unstable temperaments.

Shortly after my little episode with the cattle I learnt of yet another person who had been charged at by them, it was the local Vet, who had to climb a tree to escape.

I then started doing some research about cattle and found from the Health and Safety Executive figures, that since 2003 there have been 500 incidents reported nationally, 20 of which have resulted in deaths. The majority of these are farmhands, vets and other people who work with the animals, but other Health and Safety stats show that between April 96 and Mar 2006 there have been 46 incidents between cattle and the public, 7 of which resulted in death.

Whilst I was doing this research, Anita Hinchey from Cardiff was killed by cattle when crossing a field with a public footpath, also Liz Crowsley from Yorkshire and Marilyn Duffy from Cardiff were both also killed by cattle. A teenager from Sonning in Berkshire had broken ribs and her dog was killed by cattle, whilst she was crossing a field via a public footpath. Perhaps the most famous victim was David Blunkett who was left with a black eye and cracked rib after an encounter with cattle. It seems that cattle do take quite an exception to dogs as well as horses, and all official bodies just seem to advise is that you let your dog off the lead so the cattle will chase the dog. All well if you know that your dog will definitely run off, but what if it just lies down and submits to them instead, as was the case of a gentlemen crossing a field in Dorset, he had to run back and pick up his dog and just made it to safety through the fence.

How then can Surrey Wildlife Trust or Natural England think that cattle can possibly be suitable animals to release unattended, on to all publicly accessible land, when they are obviously such unstable, potentially lethal creatures. When I attended a meeting with Surrey Wildlife Trust, Natural England and the Defense Infrastructure Organisation, I asked repeatedly how they intended to protect the public from attacks, and they just shrugged and said they would monitor the situation. This is not good enough, when you have many people, from babies to the elderly and disabled people using this land for peaceful recreation, there are no signs erected which warn people of the potential danger from cattle, in fact the only sign erected is the one that warns that YOUR DOG may do harm to the cattle! Surely the safety of the public should be the first and only consideration. If someone is injured or dies as a result of this crazy - lets graze all available pieces of land in order to obtain the Higher Level Stewardship Grant – then Surrey Wildlife Trust and Natural England should be held personally responsible for any injury or death.

We live in an age where people are so busy working hard, that they take recreation seriously, and consider it important to be able to walk, run, bike or ride in a relaxed and happy manner, without having to be on the look out for potentially dangerous animals. If Surrey Wildlife Trust and Natural England have their way, every piece of public access land will be controlled by cattle, making it impossible to enjoy the outdoors in safety.

There is no published scientific proof that cattle are the best means of maintaining the land in the first place, as with Old Dean Common, they are still having to cut and spray herbicides on the pine, birch trees and also grasses. Bracken is the biggest problem and it is well known to be carcinogenic to cattle.

I have had to resume my daily litter clearing with my husband since one of my dogs cut her paw on something very sharp, either glass or army debris. Pre- fencing, I had been clearing the litter for the previous 10 years, as I was fed up of taking my dogs to the vets to be stitched up yet again, which is also very expensive. I stopped collecting litter when Surrey Wildlife Trust put the cattle on to the Common, and I advised James Adler that I was doing this and that litter is a major problem there. However, after an initial clear up of old fridges and rusty beds etc. they haven't done anything, and since I have resumed over the last 2 months, we have collected approx 14 supermarket shopping bags per week of public and army debris plus discarded fencing wire, car batteries, parts of rusty motorbikes etc. etc, these are a hazard not only to my dogs, but also to all other wildlife.

Surely THIS is what Surrey Wildlife Trust and Natural England should be about, looking after the wildlife of an area and ensuring TOTAL SAFETY for the public, it shouldn't only be about maintaining their herd of cattle in order to obtain the grant.

Self-closing bridleway gates at Pirbright

The attached pictures and video may give you some good ideas about what needs to be questioned. It’s on a bridleway which crosses the busy Pirbright- Brookwood road at the village end of Cemetery Pales. It’s so bad that riders have stopped using this bridleway and ride down the road instead. 50mph traffic is literally safer than trying to get through these.

The problems I see are:

1) First gate – closing mechanism has no closing resistance, ie no hydraulic mechanism to slow the closing. Closing time is four seconds; if you didn’t get your horse clear in about two and a half seconds it or you would be hit. Hydraulic mechanisms are currently not available on wooden gates because they are not strong enough to handle the weight. They are only available on metal gates Natural England will apparently only allow wooden gates.

Size of box – for horses, there is not enough room to get into the box and get out of the way of the first gate closing on the horse’s quarters. Ponies may just get away with it.

2) Second gate – closing mechanism is marginally slower but as you come out of the box, there’s a tree in the way ! Handle is too low and obviously very stiff.

3) There are no mounting blocks.

4) There are now more signs on and around the gates which are off putting for horses. The main road is right behind you.

I believe that this is the gate where a young girl’s horse panicked and she was knocked nconscious. I don’t know what happened to the horse.

Thursley, Elstead, Ockley, Royal & Bagmoor Commons Public Consultation

A notice has been published by Surrey Wildlife Trust and posted at various access points on theCommons:

http://www.surreywildlifetrust.org/files/site-notice.pdf

Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT), in partnership with the Ministry of Defence/Defence Estates (MoD/DE) and Natural England (NE), is undertaking a major review of the management of Thursley, Ockley, Elstead, Royal and Bagmoor Commons, and has embarked on a consultation process to seek the views of members of the public, local communities, organisations, stakeholders and visitors to understand how they use, experience and value the Commons, in order to help decide how they should be managed for wildlife and people.

The Commons are internationally important for their wildlife and are amongst the finest remaining examples of lowland heath in southern England; a globally rare and threatened habitat. Between them, the Commons are designated as a RAMSAR site (i.e. wetlands of international importance), a European Special Protection Area (SPA), a Special Area for Conservation (SAC), a National Nature Reserve (NNR) and as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

The Commons are a rich, diverse tapestry of mini-habitats dominated by a varied heather sward, with some bare ground, wetland and scrub perfect for wildlife. In order to prevent decline of these Commons we need to continually manage them to protect them from the invading scrub, trees, bracken and coarse grasses which can cause the loss of the diverse heathland.

Over the last 250 years, nearly 90% of UK heathland has been lost so areas like these Commons are especially precious today, as they are a unique and cultural landscape formed and maintained by generations of local people. The Commons have been part of the history of the area for centuries, once providing local people with a source of income and a livelihood. The heathland provided them small wood, heather turves for fuel and grazing for their sheep and cattle.

The mosaic-like habitat can today be achieved to some extent through a combination of management techniques such as mowing, controlled winter burning, turf-cutting and summer grazing. However without any management, the heathland can quickly be taken over by encroaching trees and scrub so it is not an option to do nothing and let the Commons decline.

The Commons are also immensely valuable wild open spaces for people to enjoy. The Commons have long been available for public access, subject to military use, and are popular with walkers, dog walkers, cyclists, runners, riders and naturalists throughout the year. People bring many benefits to the Commons from the incidental creation of wildlife habitat such as bare ground, to the reporting of fires and vandalism as well as in the support of volunteers.

The Commons needs to be managed for the majority of users and for wildlife, landscape, health and safety and amenity, as well as for military training. There are inevitably choices to be made for future management, but the views of users and local stakeholders are important to us, before we decide on how to proceed.

A number of drop-in days and events have taken place over the last two years, to discuss the issues with visitors, users and stakeholders. All of the feedback given at these events and drop in days and/or submitted separately, has been collated and analysed.

We are aware that notices have recently been placed at the main access points around the Commons, urging users and visitors to voice their concerns about the consultation to SWT. The Trust has recently posted their own notice at the main access points to rectify any misinformation and answer concerns.

A copy of the notice can be downloaded here: Site Notice

A report detailing the responses on the future management of the Commons can also be downloaded below.

Please direct any enquiries to Zoe Grainger at Surrey Wildlife Trust, School Lane, Pirbright, Woking, Surrey GU24 0JN or e-mail Zoe.Grainger@surreywt.org.uk

Further Information:

Public Consultation Leaflet

Public Consultation Background Paper

Actions Appraisal of Thursley, Ockley, Elstead, Royal & Bagmoor Commons

Report on First Stage of the Public Consultation

Phase 2 - Background Paper

TERRACE: Thursley & Elstead Residents & Riders Against Commons Enclosure

Your commons are under threat of enclosure by Surrey Wildlife Trust Limited

TERRACE Action is opposing perimeter fencing of Thursley, Elstead, Royal, Ockley and Bagmoor Commons.

Protecting the interests of horse riders, dog walkers, residents, cyclists, walkers and all who currently enjoy the Public Open Space of these commons, now under threat from Surrey Wildlife Trust Ltd.’s enclosure plans.

[TERRACE fencing campaign web page]

[TERRACE campaign petition]

[TERRACE Facebook page]

Adrian Ince

5, Edward Road, Windlesham, Surrey GU20 6EX

Tel: 01276 489397 Fax: 0709 230 7840 Mob: 07979 811956

Email: adrian@theinces.co.uk

To naoual.margoum@pins.gsi.gov.uk 19th March 2012

The powers invested in SWT by SCC, and in Natural England by the government, are biased in favour of wild life restoration and conservation to the exclusion of the rights of people. They did not include a like duty that SWT and Natural England should balance their duty to achieve their wildlife objectives with such existing rights as the public then enjoyed. The ultimate objective of SWT and NE is, having (they hope) shown that a slight improvement of their inherently ‘slow’ method of proceeding (namely, cattle) justifies a second 4-year term of temporary internal fencing, and then a third…that then, permanent perimeter fencing will take its place. In the Statement, there are two consequences of the-rights-of-humans failing: (i) There was a Planning Inspector’s ruling 12 or so years ago (when there was an attempt to erect perimeter fencing around the Common for the purpose of restraining cattle) yet this is been ignored as being not part of SWT’s and NE’s duties. That ruling was that such fencing was illegal as it destroyed the openness and unbounded nature of the Common and thus destroyed the almost unique psychological, that is to say the spiritual, experience the public had of the Common, which enjoyment by the public is what SCC had acquired the Common from Lord Onslow expressly for; (ii) the use, in SWT’s Statement of Case, of the term ‘access’ in the sense only of the freedom to walk and ride in future, where before there had been dense bracken, scrub or trees, or discomforting tussocks of Molinia grass – because it would have been cleared – rather than in the sense intended by the court which was to do with being free to walk onto it at almost any point, and to be free of the sight of an end or barrier to it when approaching it or wandering on it.

The Statement of Case is deceitful in referring to the ending of grazing in past times being responsible for the deterioration of the Common. It even goes so far as to say that since the Common was created by grazing cattle, only grazing cattle can restore it. SWT and NE both know that the impoverished soil of the Common came about, and was maintained as impoverished, by exploitation of the Common by cutting turf for fires and roofs; by cutting gorse for fires and especially for the kilns in the local brick making industry; by the cutting and removal of trees as timber; by the enormous industry of heather harvesting for brooms (Chobham Common supplying brooms for the navy for years); as well as seasonal grazing. It is the ending over time of all these activities which is the basic reason the soil is gradually being enriched thus changing the kind of growth, and the kinds of plants, and thus the kinds of animal, bird, and insect it is a suitable home for. And SWT has argued so far for the full battery of procedures mimicking these exploitative customs of the past as the way to restore and preserve the impoverished nature of the soil of lowland heath such as Chobham Common.

My argument is a combination of point (1) and point (2). SWT and NE should be under a duty to balance the restoration and conservation of Chobham Common’s rare and precious wildlife habitat with an equal duty to honour and preserve the Common’s unbounded, unrestricted spiritual human environment which depends on the beauty and variety of its wildlife in part but also, and almost uniquely, on its unbounded and unrestricted nature.

The absence of exploitative activity is, however, only part of the causes of enrichment of the soil. Another is the beginning of, and growth of, the distribution of air-borne vehicle exhausts over the Common. Any overall plan to restore and conserve an impoverished soil has to tackle this source of enrichment. Yet for all their talk, no plans are being talked of. Indeed, it seems quite beyond the competence of an organization specialising in wildlife. What they are doing is analogous to keeping passengers off more and more sections of the deck of the Titanic so they can make some repairs and re-treat it with preservative. The problem needs a much more radical approach, more science concerning the relationship of air quality to the proximity of vehicles to the Common, and more determination to involve measures restricting and confining traffic near lowland heath. This is no different in principle from the separation of vehicles and people in selected areas for the protection of what we are determined to protect. I make no detailed suggestions here: I mention the point only because it indicates the shallowness of the claimed concern for the quality of lowland heath that one of the biggest causes of deterioration is not being tackled or discussed; and that the proper bodies to get involved in the matter are not involved.

During discussions with local members of the public, and with local organisations of such people with years of experience of the common and of its use and care, an additional technique for dealing with the plant invasion which cattle are supposed to be being introduced to deal with was brought to light. This was a technique used in Derbyshire of poisoning and burning the Molinia grass at the appropriate season and replanting (or seeding) with heather. The local societies agreed to the grazing trial, with temporary fencing in place of the permanent fencing planned, on the understanding that a trial of the method would be conducted on Chobham Common at the same time. We understand that an executive of EN had said that such a trial could go ahead. It didn’t. And now SWT are describing the proposal of this technique as ‘inchoate’, as ‘not fully-formulated, not fully formed’; and saying with undisguised disdain, that if some other qualified body were to get the proposal into a properly formulated and respectable condition – and it must be a body that was capable of itself conducting the trial – then such a trial would be considered but would of course be subject to the judgements of such procedures as are the received wisdom in conservation circles. That is seen as a betrayal, as bad faith. It makes the protestations of good intent appear hypocritical, and their argument special pleading. This is a serious matter. Those who care want to get it right. It should not be decided by who is the better deceiver or the more powerful definer of what is good and what is not. The technique is sound and needs a trial in Chobham before any more fencing for more cattle is introduced.

This question of the received wisdom in conservation circles is no small matter. It is customary for there to be such received wisdom. It seems hardly possible to get a consensus without that consensus becoming at once a dogma forbidding all further introduction of thinking. It is almost a matter of loyalty or even becomes so much taken for granted that people affected become incapable of conceiving of its not being necessarily right all the time everywhere – a sort of “of-course” reaction is met with, such as you would get if you asked someone “You mean to say you eat with a knife and fork?” Is this what causes the Statement of Case to say that grazing is vital to their program of restoration, and not only that, to say that all the other techniques in their battery of techniques cannot be deployed unless first grazing is put into widespread use. Or is it, since they have hitherto always said that grazing was just one of a number of techniques, each appropriate in different places and circumstances, more a case of spin and deceit than of self-deception?

Self-deception rather than deceit of others is, I think, what accounts for the probable blindness of SWT and the certain blindness of NE to the failures of the grazing technique. Since different techniques are for different circumstances it must be the case that once in a while a technique is thought to be just possibly the right one but it turns out not to be. How else would one have discovered that different treatments suit different cases? But we find the arguments in the Statement of Case make no reference to failures which are discoverable if one is determined; and the SWT and NE have always pooh-poohed any talk of failures being significant or the fault of grazing. There is a kind of tyranny in the uniformity of public front in the conservation business. It is like the received wisdom of tower block building (which obviously addressed the question of housing merely as housing but was later to be seen as failing to address the need for neighbours, play areas, overseeing of spaces, security, community); or of tonsillitis surgery which was once little less than automatic, but not now (though gluey ears took its place – same surgeons, surprise-surprise!)

Tyranny is notable in the repeated remark in the Statement of Case that the fencing is vital to the grazing, and the grazing to the restoration, and that if the inquiry rejects it NE has the authority to devise a plan and put it into effect regardless, and to make the objectors pay. No group couching its argument in such terms is serious in its apparent consultations. Nor is it fair justice that taxpayers’ money can be spent by such an organisation in order to give it seemingly democratic justification when (i) the opponents they pretend to allow a voice to cannot possibly afford the costs of representation; and (ii) the complicit “of-course” stance of all the bodies arrayed on their side have already made their (I will not say ‘mind’ up) their decision.

Additional Comments by Adrian Ince

appended to his original postal representation

when it was read out by him at the Inquiry

The decision by the Planning Inspector in 1998 to refuse permission was accepted by the Secretary of State but English Nature (now Natural England) was: