Hands Off Hartlebury Common

Anger at Chobham Common grazing proposal
By Louise Osborne
November 05, 2009

RESIDENTS have voiced their outrage at plans to introduce grazing cattle and permanent fencing on Chobham Common.

Around 130 people from the area attended a meeting to discuss Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT) proposals on how to manage the land.

SWT, which looks after the common on behalf of Surrey County Council, put forward a five-year plan to improve the condition of the site after Natural England said it was in an “unfavourable conservation condition”.

Possible solutions proposed by the trust included allowing animals to graze on the land, as well as cutting and mowing, controlled winter burning and scrub clearance.

But some residents have said cattle would be dangerous and are not happy about the prospect of permanent fencing and grids that would be required to control their roaming.

James Osbourn, of the Chobham Society, which organised the meeting in conjunction with Chobham Common Preservation Committee and Chobham Riders, said out of all those gathered, only two voted in favour of the proposals put forward by the trust.

He said: “The meeting was reminded it was as recently as 1998 that the secretary of state had decided against the county’s application to fence the northern part of the common following a lengthy public inquiry.

“Many of those present asked why the matter had even been raised again.”

Debra Powell, who keeps her horse Merlin at the Langshot Equestrian Centre, in Gracious Pond Road, said she opposed the idea of having cattle on the site.

She said: “I am worried about the safety aspect and coming across lots of animals when I am out riding.

“Horses can be spooked and if they see something unusual, their automatic reaction is to run.

“I think there is a great risk to horse riders and I would be very worried about riding on the common.”

Natural England’s conservation officer Carole Mortimer said: “Grazing will control grasses that are invading the site and can be achieved, together with maintaining and enhancing public access. But no final decisions have yet been agreed.

“Grazing would probably only be for part of the year and we would take every measure possible to ensure its impact was minimal, including avoiding any potential impact on the visual appearance of the landscape.”

Why are they aquiring as much land as they can, with the very same blueprint, at the same time, wherever they possibly can??

#856: -

All of our chases, heaths, commons, moors, village greens and open spaces have enjoyed a benign existence up to now. It was only a matter of time before some bright spark thought we could make money out of these spaces.

Natural England is a body created to oversee the so called management of these spaces in a way that they have never been subject to before, they employ over 4000 people. They hand out 400 million a year to finance schemes which

a/ keep Natural England employed and busy

b/ Keep the army of recipiants employed and  busy

Therfore the total subsequent to the EU is far higher than 400 million per year.

NE has been embarking on land grab for a long time now, granting SSSI on just about any bit of land it can aquire whether in private or public or non ownership. More land, more money from the EU

A business is defined as any venture which generates income. Natural Egnland are involved in the process of aquiring and the distrubution of finance. A business. An income.

 

Therefore, hartlebury common, carry out the maximum amount of damage for the minimum amount of money.(Management takes the vast percentage of cash)  Put cattle on there to trash the place, which vandals could have done for a fraction of the cost. Create an unsustainable, maintenance - finance reliant enviroment and bingo, you have created a new industry. Even better, once you change the status of a common from a common, to heath and effectivley ruin the landscape and put longhorn cattle on it so you have fewer visitors like everywhere else, then if you want to build houses, who is going to argue. You have assumed- established the rights of ownership, so stuff you.

 

 

Steve, NE was a rebadging of EN which I am sure you know.EN was an evolved Nature Conservancy Council.Going back to the 70's when I worked for an NCC council member they appeared to be a decent bunch intent on good BUT a gradual usurping of the organisation by jobsworths,rose tinted glasses and career conservationists coupled with DEFRA's bent toward farm subsidies(now ELS/HLS)has totally derailed what could have been an inspiring World leading exemplar of good practise.Don't get me wrong,money is a huge factor AND it will be their downfall.The environment is set to be the biggest industry in the World so it attracts interests that are not necessarily having our environments best interests at heart.Certainly the current tranche of grants are agriculturally targeted BUT the economic downturn will curtail that approach thus" downfall".Europe has already announced intended cutbacks to environmental budgets THUS pulling the rug from under claims of sustainability.Suspension equates to expenditure.Expenditure equates to global damage as money can only be generated by material damage.Europe 'progresses'(suspends/stands still)other areas of the World are degraded as a result!As an example of an agenda/suspension lead project heathland is being subjected to,as you know,a one size fits all programme that will fail BUT in their haste they failed to recognise,in fact denied,the existence of natural self sustaining heathland.Only on a challenge by me through Jim Paice did NE admit its existence.Thus a man made environment became more important than one of the rarest global environments that has never been surveyed meaning that the ignorant(local NE staff)could agree to HLS payments to graze natural sites that leading authorities(ITE/CEO)state "should NEVER be grazed".I could quote many similar examples but lay the blame for all problems at Helen Philips door.Any organisations culture reflects the boardroom and it is clear that she has little time for anything but agenda 'drives'.As one NE senior manager told Ian,Craig and I "we will have succeeded if we just put money into the rural economy".He meant farmers not shops/post offices/schools.If the will exists to reverse nature's fortunes the simplest way would be to halt population growth. " " " " " " " " embrace the public to reengage them and harness their energy. " " " " " " " " let nature manage itself on at least 60% of our land mass.etc etc.BUT the need for food to fuel our population is pressing ingresses in natural areas.The need to justify this is thus pressing NE into arrogance/disregard/unlawfullness and a disregard of their prime objective.Anyway the recognition of motives etc are secondary to stopping them.I wrote to you of the means to stop them but you did not respond to the key issues of the laws that we must pursue to show them as they are,Steve.
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 06:52:17 -0700