Elstead Independent News

Background

David Moxon

16 January 2012

Proposed closure of MoD car parks

In recent months, most recently in the minutes of the Elstead Parish Council meeting of 5 December, reference has been made to the MoD’s proposal to close car parks giving access to Hankley and Elstead Commons.  In communications with the Parish Council, notices at the Hankley Common DZ car park and in conversations with individuals, contradictory reasons have been advanced.   This note seeks to summarise the main issues that have been raised.

The key reasons given for closing car parks are (a) the problem of dog mess which makes some areas unpleasant for trainees; and (b) the requirement to make more intensive us of our local commons for training.   Either way the clear implication is that by closing car parks fewer people will choose to use the commons which in turn must inevitably mean they become a less valuable resource for the local community and visitors to the area.  

Dog mess around MoD car parks

This has been a consistent theme and is reflected in notices and new signs put up around the commons.  If this is the sole reason for closing car parks it seems an extreme response to such a narrow problem.

It is, of course, a good idea to encourage owners to clear up after their dogs.  The problem is very much concentrated around car parks. There is no doubt that there has been an excessive amount of dog mess on the path above the DZ car park in particular.  But the levels have been reduced and dog owners are more often seen clearing up after their animals.   Providing bins is the simple way to mitigate the problem and other bodies with responsibility for common land, such as the  National Trust the RSPB and local councils, are increasingly adopting this solution.  The army have said it is not up to them to tackle this problem.  But it is frankly unrealistic to expect people to carry a bag of dog turds on long walks around the common: it is important to help people to do the right thing.  The reality is that the MoD is responsible for large areas of open land to which the public have access and if they have a problem with dog mess than it is common sense for them to help solve it in a constructive way.  (It has been suggested that WBC would provide dog waste bins at the Pitch Place car park on Hankley Common which is obviously helpful.)

It is understood that, by MoD’s internal rules, training may not take place within 300 metres of a car park.  If this is so it makes a nonsense of the evidence which the army produced in the summer showing dog mess around the DZ car park when that is within the army’s self-proclaimed training exclusion zone. (In fact this 300 metre rule does not seem to be rigidly followed.)

Increased levels of training

After advancing the problem of dog mess around the Hankley Common car park as the reason for closing the car park the army appear to have moved on to the issue of levels of training.   The Parish Council suggested a possible compromise in the car park should be available to the public when training is not in progress.  However, MoD have claimed that training now takes place on 83 per cent of days so it would still be closed most of the time.  While allowing parking on the remaining 17 per cent of days would be better than nothing, any closure will cause confusion for a long time to come.  Visitors come from a wide area and often rely on OS maps and walk books that show the location of car parks.  Past visitors who simply 'know' they can park there will be confused if they can’t.  We will get more dispersed parking on surrounding lanes and tracks such as Houndown which gives access to houses but is part of the army training area. 

It remains unclear what, exactly, has changed to justify closure of a car park that was opened by MoD to facilitate public access in the 1970s.  It is in constant use and also provides facilities for horse boxes as it has a good surface and there is no height bar. 

As people gradually become aware of the closure they will simply find other places on Hankley Common to park which may have other adverse consequences.  For example, one can park at the end of Westbrook but that has a number of houses along it and residents will have to put up with a lot more traffic.   People from surrounding towns may simply gravitate to other commons which are more welcoming, such as the National Trust ones, to the detriment of Elstead businesses.  On busy weekends all the main local car parks fill up and closing any of them will mean there is insufficient parking to meet demand. 

There seems some doubt as to which car parks other than the DZ one are under threat.  In view of the reference to the car parks serving Hankley and Elstead commons  it is reasonable to assume that the car park on Milford Road could also be targeted. This is the only car park giving access to Royal Common and is very popular.  It gives immediate access to a track which is particular good for wheelchairs and is much used for youngsters learning to ride bikes.     Most tracks in the area are either too steep or too sandy for wheelchairs and this track is promoted as a wheelchair-friendly walk by SCC.

There has been a proposal that the MoD would provide a new car park at the Tweedsmuir Camp on Thursley Road. This area, while pleasant, is quite small and does not link directly with either Hankley or Thursley Common.  Local people occasionally use it for mushrooming, blackberrying etc and the police use if for dog training.  Presumably the MoD are proposing it as an alternative to the DZ car park because they do not use it for training.  But it seems unlikely to be viewed by the public as a fair exchange for the DZ car park.  Few are likely to use it as a base for walking or horse riding as there are no public rights of way associated with it.

More recent reports (eg Elstead News, December 2011) suggest that the army wants to use Hankley and other local commons more intensively and that the closure of car park(s) has more to do with reducing the numbers of people visiting the common, albeit without necessarily taking the much more drastic step of restricting access as such.  Local residents have noticed a significant increase in the army’s use of the commons in the past year. 

The army can be expected to give more details of what it has in mind at a meeting in February to which local councillors have been invited.  From the story so far it has been suggested that the intensification of training has to do with the repatriation of troops from Germany and the urgent need to prepare them for deployment in Afghanistan.  This is unconvincing as the troops are being repatriated between now and 2020 whereas operations in Afghanistan are due to be completed by the end of 2014. 

Looking at the longer term the number of soldiers is set to fall from around 143,000 now (including 33,000 territorials) to 112,000 by 2020 (including 30,000 part-timers).  So across the country as a whole there are going to be a lot fewer people to train.  This remains the case even if one includes the 20,000 currently stationed in Germany.

Why are Surrey commons taking such a disproportionate burden?

It would be interesting to know if our local commons, and especially the 230 hectares of Hankley, have been singled out or whether there are similar issues in respect of other parts of the 160,000 hectares of the MoD’s Rural Estate.  At a time when army bases are tending to be relocated to cheaper parts of the country it is surprising that so much more use is apparently being planned for Surrey’s commons.   Surrey has the highest population density of any non-metropolitan county and its commons serve a large population.  Public access and military training have co-existed perfectly happily for many decades.  With the population of Surrey set to increase over the coming years while the army shrinks in size, a shift in the use of the commons from the civilian population to the army looks hard to justify.

Restrictions on use of tracks other than public rights of way?

The army cannot ban people from public rights of way as the law stands.  However, there have been veiled threats about access to other tracks that criss-cross the commons and where access has always been allowed (and greatly appreciated) hitherto. Any path closures would be counter-productive.  Soldiers use the bridleways a lot, which is perfectly reasonable.  But if one wants to keep out of their way then diverting onto permissive tracks is nearly always possible - there are so many to choose from!  So a multiplicity of tracks makes it easier for the public to steer clear of areas where training exercises are in progress.  Confining public access to rights of way would have a particularly adverse effect on cyclists as some of the bridleways comprise deep sand which makes cycling virtually impossible.  Many of the other tracks are broad and firm and Hankley in particular is excellent for cycling (as evidenced by the fact it is used for major charity rides – eg on 21 January 2012).

Has the army’s attitude changed?

Regular users of the commons have discerned a change in attitude by the army in the past year or two.  It is exemplified by the fact that the Visitors Car Park was created in the 1970s in recognition of the need to enhance public access to a popular area.  There is an understandable suspicion that the transfer of responsibility for managing the commons to a private company, Landmarc, has been accompanied by a less sensitive appreciation of the need for mutual respect and tolerance between the army and the public.  The fact that the army are now one stage removed from the process of land management has perhaps affected the army’s readiness to take account of the wider public interest.

Acknowledgement of this role is set out in MOD's policy as set out in this FAQ on their website:

“Q: Can I walk anywhere on MOD land?

A: It is not possible to have unlimited access because of operational, safety and conservation interests. However, where our duty of care to the general public, safety and security considerations permit, we will seek to increase the overall amount, quality and certainty of access to the estate.“

A core purpose of the army is to safeguard our way of life. For many of us our way of life includes the right to free access to areas of open countryside, many of which are under MOD control, which we have enjoyed hitherto  The army's policy of increasing the "overall amount, quality and certainty of access" is entirely praiseworthy.  It is troubling to find that local management is seeking to move in the opposite direction.  The withdrawal of public facilities coupled with increasing intrusion into the lives of all who live within earshot of the common and use the local roads is something that should be vigorously challenged. 

David Moxon

16 January 2012