Statement of Case

By Objectors to the Proposed Fencing of and Trotton Commons by Wildlife Trust.

Application COM 749 OUR COMMONS

1. This is the objection to the proposed fencing of Iping and Trotton Commons by the 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 , 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. As you will see from the letters (see Documents in IV.) there is a level of anger amongst the local residents you would not expect if they were satisfied that their voices had been heard, and that SWT had adapted its own behaviour accordingly.

GATES - RIDING

11. Iping and Trotton commons are used by many people who ride. The open access, the contiguous bridleways heading south to the Downs and the approaches down the lanes from Didling, Chithurst, Dumpford and Iping make this a popular location. This is especially so as there are no gates to impede access. To open a narrow gate with a self-shutting hinge is not particularly easy when riding. The gates SWT have chosen on Stedham are particularly hard to open because they are the minimum width, they only open in one direction and the hinge mechanism is chosen to be fast action. In other words you not only have to lever the catch open, but you have to lean down and hold the gate with one hand constantly to stop the gate as it endeavours to shut, while simultaneously, manoeuvring the horse through. Because the gate opening is as narrow as it can be, you have to keep the horse up against the moving gate (which it naturally wants to keep away from) because otherwise your leg, on the other side, would be squashed against the gatepost as you pass through. There are gates which are easier, because they are wider, the hinge action is less aggressive and they can be pushed from either direction. SWT has decided not to use these in their fence proposal even though they are widely used in other local conditions. For example District Council has just installed one on Clay Lane at Minsted.

12. As we have explained opening a gate from a horse is not easy in the conditions now prevailing on Stedham. These narrow, fast shutting gates may be difficult for a horse and adult rider to open but they are impossible to get a leading rein pony through, because the pony, or its small child rider, cannot hold the gate as they pass through. The injuries from a gate catch crushing a child’s leg are painful and can be serious. As ponies tend to anticipate the gate’s closure they can react by rushing through, which may carry the pony and child onto the road at some speed. Not one of the suggestions put forward to SWT, by riders to improve that situation has been accepted, or even noted in their proposal. (see Document III-5)

8. We notice that the corral they propose to build on the A272 entrance to Iping Common does not have a bridleway connection across the A272.

9. This lack of consideration for those who have used Iping and Trotton Commons to ride over through their childhoods and watched their own children do the same has caused particular anger among those affected locally.

GATES – DISABLED AND ELDERLY

10. Neither the kissing gates nor bridle gates chosen by SWT are acceptable for self-propelled users of mobility vehicles. The use by wheelchairs, although welcome, is of little benefit when a more robust form of transport is needed to use the paths of the common. For those who would like to continue to access Iping and Trotton Common by using a ‘Tramper Mobility Scooter’ or similar, the gates will be impassable and a permanent barrier.

11. It should be noted that in order to open the gate, the mobility scooter user has to manoeuvre the scooter alongside the gate so that they can get their hand through the gate to physically undo the catch itself. Having unlocked he gate, the scooter user has to keep the gate open and manoeuvre the scooter through – it does not take much imagination to see that this operation is impossible to achieve.

FUNDING

12. The funding of the fence is proposed to come from the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme for capital works. During the last few years major clearance of rhododendron was undertaken at the south of Iping Common. This was funded by similar grants. In clearing the rhododendrons, there were also large numbers of oak trees taken out by the excavator and sold; despite the English oak being such an excellent host species for insects and spiders. The area of land was then left untouched. There was no follow up management, as the grant money was for capital works rather than for ongoing work. The land, which is greensand, was washed down to partially fill the pond which had been below this land. The bare ground the excavator had left, and latterly the pond as well, now filled with young birch regrowth, which soon became impenetrable to those visiting the common. The pond could no longer act as blotting paper to soak up heavy rain before it ran along ditches around adjacent farm fields. In the winter now if the rain is heavy, these fields are flooded, farm livestock have to be moved, or drown, the grass suffers, it is costly to buy more winter hay and overwintering crops cannot be sown. This, on a smaller scale, is similar to the flooding of the Somerset levels a couple of years ago. There too conservationists were deaf to the effects their silting up works would have on the local population downstream.

13. Meanwhile on the common the snipe which were occasionally seen on the pond disappeared. While the reed warbler, which formerly lived in the reeds around the pond, were displaced as the reeds and pond vanished. The cuckoo, which used to be regularly heard, and which likes to imitate the reed warbler also fell silent. Whatever the anticipated ecological benefits of this work, the reality of the situation was that bird species have been lost to us, neighbouring farms continue to suffer and the SWT continue regardless.

14. Capital grant based conservation work, can never have the effect it seeks, unless there is commitment to the costs of the management to follow up these works, with adequate labour never being provided to stop weed infestation in this area. Again no explanation of the rationale behind this destructive felling of oak trees, some of them over 100 years old, some young saplings which could have grown to be wonderful mature trees, was never provided, and the SWT’s reputation locally suffered accordingly.

REMOTE HUSBANDRY

15. SWT is based in Henfield which is a one hour drive from here. At this distance the organisation struggles to maintain a consistent follow up to earlier actions, their resources appear to be too thinly spread and although they are adept at applying for grant money and deploying this, the long term benefit, which would have been the aim of this spending can never flow, as there is inadequate resources or skills to provide the ongoing maintenance.

16. The fencing is proposed solely so that grazing can be carried out by cattle. Although farmers can have livestock grazing some distance away from their main holding, it is not good practice where SWT cannot be sure of the safety of their animals with the farmer based two hours’ drive away, in East Sussex. In a normal agricultural situation neighbouring farmers and landholders would notice if their neighbour’s cow had suffered an accident, got stuck in a ditch or got out onto the road. On Stedham Common a couple of years ago the fence posts were rotting out on the southern boundary and the cattle escaped several times.

17. The fence was replaced using barbed wire despite this being against the original agreement, and the old fence bundled up and left beside the new fence. Wire netting left to rust and catch unwary creatures for years to come. Hardly the sort of practice a wildlife organisation should adopt. It is still there now. Again local people have requested that the SWT employees or sub-contractors remove this, to no avail.

18. The farm manager for SWT, comes from Lewes. It’s a long way from Lewes, or Ringmer, back and forward when cows has escaped where they shouldn’t be, or are in need of attention. Meanwhile apart from escaping down the roads there aren’t that many places for those cows to go, without causing damage to the neighbours, already at odds with the SWT over bTB.

19. When Iping Common had temporary electric fencing to enclose a few cows, the fences were put across the most used paths, despite requests that they be put alongside them, so that access was not impeded. The effect of making it harder to walk along the existing paths meant the people chose different routes and as a result there were two dog attacks on neighbouring sheep within a week of this fencing. Jane Willmott was asked if this could be changed, and if the gates could be made easier to open and close, but once again SWT refused.

20. The reliance on a lookerer, to check the cattle, who does not have the capability of rounding them up, and has neither the knowledge nor strength to manage them, is negligent. For example during their short time on Iping Common they were often found without water in their trough.

21. The cattle escaped once toward the Fitzhall corner and were lucky that the car which nearly ran into them in the dark, managed to stop in time. The second time they escaped towards Goldrings, and then came back along the track to the Bridgelands corner. Only the efforts of passing motorists and residents stopped them causing damage to the asparagus field at its vital picking time. Once again it was dark when they were out and there was a real chance of a traffic accident on that road.

SWT COMMUNICATION WITH LOCAL POPULATION

22. After that occasion SWT published an article in the parish magazine claiming that their gates had been propped open. Once again, whatever the intentions the SWT farmer was too far away to stop the cattle he is responsible for, escaping or to catch them in a timely manner when they have. SWT are relying on someone else being on hand to prevent accidents or straying. It is not a responsible way to keep livestock especially if SWT believe that there are people capable of deliberately opening gates on Iping Common.

23. When one of the cattle grazing on Stedham Common was found to be positive for bTB, The reaction of SWT was firstly to try to avoid publicising this information, and then to restock. We can see no evidence that they or their advisors have attempted to explain, or discover, how this cow which had been in West Sussex for some years became infected with the strain of bTB found in East Sussex. Additionally the lack of real contrition of the financial and emotional damage this has caused to cattle farmers in our and adjoining parishes affected by culls, testing and movement restrictions as a result of this infection has been indefensible. There is a very real anger that those who suffer no personal financial repercussion themselves can talk now blithely of restocking while adjacent to Stedham Common bTB culls are still being carried out as a result of the SWT cow’s infection. (see Document II - 1). Again the cost that locals are having to bear, in the name of conservation, is too high. What price do you set on a few cattle walking through the grass swards to break them up, when compared to the heartbreak of shooting young homebred dairy cows; and testing and culling again?

24. Sussex is a large county. Iping & Trotton Commons lie at the far western edge of it. The SWT is spread thinly over it, with a livestock base in the east and their administration and conservation officers based an hour’s drive away in Henfield. To those of us who live here, they appear like a destructive foreign force damaging the commons we love with their vehicles, their diggers and their chainsaws. They never seem to appreciate or enjoy these wonderful wild spaces as we do, or have any compunction for the scars they leave behind.

GOVERNANCE

25. The SWT is a charity governed by a Board of Trustees. We note that the annual report identifies the reputational risk of Trust management, business probity, adverse press and poor animal welfare. We have requested details from SWT to confirm that the proposal to press ahead with the fencing despite these risks has been considered by the Trustees, which SWT has refused to provide to us.

26. We would also observe that the objectives set out in the SWT annual report are to ‘to deliver nature conservation …by working with landowners/ managers and communities’. Additionally in accordance with the SWT’s charitable obligations there should be measurement of financial and other gains of the anticipated conservation benefits, so that the appropriate cost benefit analysis can be shown.

27. It may be that SWT are not complying with its charitable aims. There are other well publicised charities which are currently finding that certain of their actions have been proven to overreach their charitable purposes. To continue with questionable methodology, despite evidence to the contrary (using public funds) which result in causing more harm than good, are at risk of providing the press and others with ammunition which could create huge reputational damage, not only to SWT and to the conservation sector , but additionally to publically funded bodies in general.

CONCLUSION

28. We do not doubt that SWT is subject to the legislation they have based their application on. In an ideal world grazing could be part of the management of heather, if the benefits were proven. But this is not an ideal world. The unpopularity of their proposal with local people who have first-hand experience of their erratic management style, characterised by large capital works programmes failing because of inadequate ongoing maintenance; insensitive tree removal with consequential loss of habitat; the inability to limit the damage their vehicles are doing together with the introduction of Bovine TB means they have lost all credibility with many local people. It is incredibly sad that the Wildlife organisation which has its slogan of Looking after Sussex should be seen to be ignoring not only any scientific evidence which does not fit the scenario they have decided to adopt, in contravention of good practice and of their Charitable Aims.

29. They plan to fence the majority of Iping and Trotton Commons, to fence many people, including disabled, elderly and young riders, out, to cut off forever parts of Trotton Common in the west, the sandy hills of the Cowdray plantation to the south, and the Leconfield land near the carpark. Their design following neat lines on a map rather than the ways we all know from lifetimes spent here.

30. We therefore respectfully request that the inspector rejects this application.

Stedham with Iping Parish Council

Catherine Myres

Lucy Petrie

Angela Church

Tania Slowe

Witness to be called: Jeremy Herrtage