Statement of Case by Objectors to The
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Statement of Case By Objectors to the Proposed Fencing of Iping and Trotton Commons by Sussex Wildlife Trust. Application COM 749 OUR COMMONS 1. This is the objection to the proposed fencing of Iping and Trotton Commons by the Stedham with Iping Parish Council, Catherine Myres, Tania Slowe, Lucy Petrie and Angela Church, as named in the inspectors’ requirements, as well as many other local people, as shall be shown. 2. The SWT installed fencing on Stedham Common 16 years ago, in order to graze cattle. Stedham Common is adjacent to Iping Common so we are able to see clearly the results of the SWT management including grazing on a very similar habitat and wildlife which existed there prior to fencing. 3. These commons are part of our locality. The wonderful open space they provide has been used by us, and our friends and neighbours for generations. Some of us have lived adjacent to them for all of our lives, others for major parts of our lives. 4. Over the generations we have seen good seasons and bad, cold winters and mild. We have seen the summers where the butterflies can turn the air blue and those with barely one to be seen. We have walked in the dusk and heard the nightjars and in the day met the other human users of the commons, on foot, on horseback or bicycle, walking dogs or pushing prams. Our children have built camps in the summer and chosen pine saplings for Christmas trees in the winter. These commons have been our play area and our responsibility. Long after the employees of the Sussex Wildlife Trust or SDNP have driven away, leaving glistening trails of mud and rutted tracks from their vehicles, we have felt the wind in our face from the top of a Bronze Age mound and heard the cry of a buzzard hunting. SWT AT WORK 5. Many people in our parishes are keen conservationists and it came as an unexpected shock when the most noticeable effect of SWT taking up the role of manager of the Nature reserve was the advent of vehicles on the commons. Driving along all available tracks, regardless of the wetness of the season or the damage they were likely to inflict; and do inflict. Teams of volunteers cutting gorse on the side of Iping Common so that the rare Dartford warblers’ safe habitat was destroyed. Subcontractors cutting down the trees passerines had roosted in for successive seasons. There had been flocks of passerines in autumn and spring, sometimes thousands of finches, which were deprived of their habitat and so have subsequently vanished. 6. All across Stedham Common the young birch thrived and grew into an ever increasing forest of scrub. On Iping the older birch were felled along with countless oak trees, obliterating in a few short chainsaw days the habitat for a myriad of insects, larger creatures and the small glades we had all enjoyed and loved. Strangely there was never anyone to explain why, or to whom the benefit these random acts of destruction were designed. 7. Iping and Trotton have always been more attractive commons than Stedham. Their open nature appeals to the walker, and the lack of gates mean there is no barrier to riding. The increased birch population on Stedham, together with the muddied mess of its paths with vehicle damage and the occasional visits from cattle, have not attracted the visitor in the way that the meandering small paths of Iping, with its clear views to the South Downs have done. But just as Stedham has become cut off from the people who used to enjoy it, by the vehicle damage and the encroaching scrub, and the problems in navigating its gates, Iping is now battered by bull dozers and diggers in the name of conservation, and threatened by a fence which will not only cut off part of Trotton Common, and a slice of Iping but will barricade out so many who have already been shut out of Stedham Common. THE EFFECT OF CATTLE 1. To read the Statement of Case by SWT you would be forgiven for thinking grazing was a panacea for all conservation ills. If this was the case here, under the management of SWT, we would find it hard to disagree, but you have only to live by Stedham Common to see that fencing this common to allow a few cattle to graze intermittently has not halted the spread of birch trees, nor created the beautiful open nature of heathland which Iping and Trotton Commons already possess. Indeed these few cattle have brought Bovine TB (bTB) into our area of West Sussex, with devastating consequences for local farming families. 2. To date 18 cattle have been slaughtered, under compulsory measures at Minsted Farm less than a mile from Stedham Common. The 6 monthly compulsory testing regime is still in place, where formerly testing was under a four year programme. Two other farmers in our parish have had to sell all their cattle because of the financial implications of the pre- movement testing now in place. Others are suffering the financial consequences of additional handling to comply with this higher frequency testing regime, which is a direct consequence of the bTB found in a SWT cow. Obviously SWT would not have chosen their cow to test positive, but their apparent lack of comprehension of the devastating effect this has had, and continues to have, on those farming families affected is appalling. 3. SWT cattle have also trampled through gorse bushes and rendered it useless as a haven for the Dartford Warbler. Small wonder that there have been none recorded on Stedham Common, since 2009, despite all the recent mild winters. This is a predictable outcome (see Document X -1). On Iping Common the numbers have fallen as the old gorse at the top of the sandy hill, beside the Cowdray plantation was decimated by SWT volunteers, as was the area beside the wooden seat, alongside the gas main track, removing the safe habitat and only reduced numbers have survived. 4. This disregard of SWT to those who live, work and make their living in our parishes stems from an arrogant belief that their narrow remit of conservation targets has a priority over any other. Just as they believe that the textbook solutions they cite outweigh the facts on the ground, which we see. 5. The effect of their actions, lack of communication and contempt of their neighbours not only makes their conservation work unappreciated and unwelcome, but also causes actual harm to our communities. The inspector is required to consider ‘the interest of the neighbourhood’ (Commons Act 2006 s39(1)b). Furthermore a cursory study of the letters from locals will show you, that despite being told about the docility of the British White as a breed, people remain scared of them and will avoid walking in areas where they are loose. 6. Grazing of heathland may be a tool in the bag of conservation measures but it can only ever be a small part of a larger programme of landscape maintenance. Before even considering its introduction SWT should ensure that they have the physical and financial resources to carry out the other essential annual work such as birch and pine seedling clearance, unexciting routine maintenance of the area which is being foregone in favour of the quick fix capital works, funded by grants where the long term benefits are lost, because of the lack of sustained follow-up; or even worse causing long term environmental and reputational damage. 7. Additionally although SWT are keen to claim a wholesale evidential basis for promoting grazing, in fact the paper comparing studies by Newton et Al (see documents X - 1) concludes ‘most conservation management decisions are based on anecdotal information… rather than scientific literature’ and ‘there is evidence that grazing impacts can be negative on some habitat features’ for instance ‘the reported declines in the abundance of tree species, cover of ericaceous shrubs and abundance of grass tussocks are likely to have negative impacts on invertebrate communities’ and ‘the reported declines in gorse cover and vertical structure are likely to have negative impacts on some bird species, such as Dartford warbler and linnet’. These are particular species we treasure here and we would not like to think the SWT are blindly following a perceived anecdotal benefit which does not exist here. CONSULTATION 8. The consultation process undertaken by SWT began with a questionnaire which set out the rationale for grazing, then asked how the fencing should be provided. The results they then cite in their evidence is thus flawed as clearly this use of leading questions removed any validity from this study. The methodology of conducting impartial surveys is well established and this one fell short of any of the standard guidelines and principles in this regard. However based in this questionnaire SWT publically declared that the majority of people were in favour of fencing, despite the fact that the majority completing the flawed questionnaire were from postcodes well outside of the immediate vicinity (see document VII). Unbelievably for such an important piece of evidence, most of them were children on a school trip, and as already mentioned the use of leading questions gave the results no credibility. 9. A petition of local residents (95% of whom lived in the immediate vicinity of the commons) was signed by 143 people. This was disregarded by SWT, and is another clear example of their inability to engage with the local population.(see Document V) 10. For the consultation to be worth anything and credible as an undertaking there has to be a clear sign of listening and communication on both sides.