Shortheath Common Report on public consultation with recommendations for management

J White N Underhill-Day J Underhill-Day R McGibbon

1

Date: December 2011 Version: Final Recommended Citation: White, J., Underhill-Day, N., Underhill-Day, J. C., & McGibbon, R (2011). Shortheath Common: Report on public consultation with recommendations on management. Unpublished report to County Council, Footprint Ecology. Wareham.

2 Contents

1 Introduction ...... 5 2 The consultation ...... 5 2.1 Information and literature produced as part of the consultation ...... 5 2.2 Methods ...... 6 2.3 Responses from drop-in days ...... 7 3 Questionnaires ...... 7 3.1 Visitor profile ...... 7 3.2 Membership of wildlife conservation or amenity organisation ...... 8 4 Reasons for visiting and patterns of use the Common ...... 9 4.1 Reasons for visiting the Common ...... 9 4.2 Frequency of visits ...... 9 4.3 Travel methods ...... 10 4.4 Amenities offered by the Common ...... 10 4.5 Other open spaces visited ...... 11 5 Respondents’ views on the condition and management of the Common ...... 12 5.1 Concerns during visits to the Common ...... 12 5.2 Concerns regarding dumped or stored garden items on the Common ...... 12 5.3 Views on current management of the Common for visitors ...... 13 5.4 Views on current management of the Common for wildlife and scrub management ...... 13 5.5 Views on information provision at Shortheath pond car park...... 13 5.6 Views on taking part in management or other activities of the Common ...... 13 6 Respondents’ views on future management options ...... 14 6.1 Views about main management options ...... 14 6.2 Views on types of livestock ...... 15 6.3 Views on types of grazing stock control ...... 15 7 Responses by letter or email from organisations and individuals ...... 16 7.1 The Ramblers Association ...... 16 7.2 Open Spaces Society ...... 16 7.3 District Council ...... 16 7.4 Hampshire County Ecologist and Hampshire Biological Records Officer ...... 16 7.5 Natural England ...... 16 7.6 Amphibian and Reptile Conservation ...... 16 7.7 Hampshire Countryside Access Forum ...... 16 7.8 Heritage Society ...... 17 7.9 Butterfly Conservation ...... 17 7.10 British Horse Society ...... 17 7.11 Environment Agency ...... 17 7.12 Responses from individuals ...... 17 8 Summary of responses ...... 18 8.1 Questionnaire responses on reasons for visiting and patterns of use ...... 18 8.2 Questionnaire responses on visitor management ...... 19 8.3 Questionnaire responses on habitat management ...... 19 8.4 Questionnaire comments ...... 19 9 Management actions and recommendations...... 20 9.1 Habitat management ...... 21 9.1.1 Scrub and tree clearance ...... 21 9.1.2 Turf-stripping ...... 21 9.1.3 Burning ...... 22

3 9.1.4 Mowing ...... 22 9.1.5 Grazing ...... 23 9.1.6 Type of grazing stock ...... 23 9.1.7 Management of grazing ...... 24 9.1.8 Survey and monitoring ...... 25 9.2 Management for people ...... 26 9.2.1 Principal concerns of respondents ...... 26 9.2.2 Community liaison ...... 26 10 Further consultations ...... 26 11 Summary of recommendations ...... 27 Appendix 1 ...... 28 Summary of comments from individuals ...... 28 Reasons for visiting and patterns of use ...... 28 Question A1: Additional reasons for visiting Shortheath Common ...... 28 Question B1: Additional amenities offered by the Common ...... 28 Respondents’ concerns on the condition of the Common ...... 28 Question B2: Additional concerns during visits to the Common ...... 28 Question B3: Additional concerns regarding dumped or stored items ...... 29 Respondents’ views on the management of the Common...... 30 Question B4: Suggested changes to current management of the Common for visitors ...... 30 Question B5: Suggested changes to the management of the Common for wildlife ...... 30 Question B10: Respondents’ views on provision of information ...... 31 Respondents’ views on future management options ...... 31 Question B7: Additional concerns on future management options ...... 31 Question B8: Comments regarding grazing and stock options ...... 32 Question B9: Comments regarding grazing stock containment ...... 32 Appendix 2 ...... 34 Shortheath Common: Questionnaire on Future Management ...... 34

4 1 Introduction

Shortheath Common is a medium-sized block of heathland and acid grassland common in the east of Hampshire. It is 60 hectares (about 150 acres) in area. The minor road between the villages of Oakhanger and Kingsley runs more or less northeast/southwest across the Common, with the major block of common to the east and a smaller parcel of common to the west of the road. The Common is crossed by several unmade tracks that provide access to various properties mainly along the eastern edge of the Common. The Common was in the ownership of the Ministry of Defence from the 1920s and was acquired by Hampshire County Council in 1994.

Footprint Ecology has been engaged to help gather the views on the management of the Common from all of all those with an interest in the site. This public consultation was based upon the principles set out in ‘A Common Purpose: a guide to agreeing management on common land’ (Short et al., 2005).

There are registered commons rights including rights associated with taking firewood and turf (attached to 10 and 8 properties respectively) and grazing (attached to 4 properties) on Shortheath Common but, as far as is known, few if any are exercised. The Common has full right of public access on foot under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW), and there are several footpaths and two bridleways. Shortheath Common is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest for its heathland and mire communities and associated wildlife and the same area is also classified as Special Area of Conservation under EU legislation for the outstanding mire communities and dry heath and bog woodland represented here. Shortheath Common is also now within the recently designated South Downs National Park.

2 The consultation

2.1 Information and literature produced as part of the consultation

The consultants produced a background paper which included:  The historical context to heathland commons and their wildlife, together with a summary of the relevant legislation affecting commons and their management.  A description of the current threats to heathland including succession to woodland, inputs of atmospheric nitrogen, disturbance, wildfires and other visitor effects.  A brief history and summary of the status of the Common, including background to previous management for people and wildlife, and the archaeological interest.  A description of the main habitats including mires, dry heath and acid grassland, and bare ground and their value for wildlife.  An assessment of potential management actions together with their pros and cons, including tree and scrub removal, gorse and bracken management, use of herbicides, mowing, controlled burning, turf-stripping and grazing.

A list of stakeholder organisations to which letters were sent is given below.

5 Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Hampshire Police Bat Conservation Trust Heathland Society Bordon Oakhanger Sports Club Kingsley Parish Council British Horse Society Local entomologist Butterfly Conservation Local recorder – bees and wasps Campaign to Protect Rural England Local SPA bird recorder East Hampshire Badger Group Ministry of Defence East Hampshire District Council Natural England English Heritage North East Hampshire Archaeological and History Society Environment Agency Open Spaces Society Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group Ramblers Association Forestry Commission Selborne Parish Council Hampshire Biological Information Centre South Downs National Park Authority Hampshire Bird Club South East National Farmers’ Union Hampshire Countryside Access Forum Tarmac Hampshire County Archaeologist Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Sustainable Environment Specialist Group Hampshire County Council Local Councillor Woodland Trust Hampshire Fire and Rescue Worldham Parish Council Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

2.2 Methods

The basis of the consultation was that a view had not been formed as to the best way for Shortheath Common to be managed into the future, and that people would be consulted as widely as possible in developing management proposals. The habitat management options given in the consultation background paper are those normally used on lowland heathland.

The consultation included the following elements:

 A background paper which included details of two consultation events (drop-in days) was put on the Hampshire County Council website at www.hants.gov.uk/shortheath-common.  A shorter leaflet summarising the interest of the Common and outlining management choices, and a fuller appraisal of management options, were produced and were also made available on the website.  Letters were e-mailed to local and national organisations, together with some additional local consultees, with a link to the background paper and options appraisal.  A similar letter including a questionnaire, leaflet and details of the other documentation available on the website was posted to the 250 or so properties immediately adjoining the Common or within 1km, including in effect all of Oakhanger village.  Common rights holders were emailed or sent a similar letter.  Drop-in days were held on the Common on 11 September 2011, and in Oakhanger Village Hall on 17 September 2011. There were 55 attendees at the drop-in days.  Three bespoke display panels were used at the drop-in days.  A questionnaire was attached to correspondence and available at both the events and from the website. Altogether 73 questionnaires were returned.  Questionnaires were also widely available locally, from the Ranger.  Twenty-two posters were put up at locations including 8 locations on Shortheath Common, and in various places in Oakhanger, Kingsley, Blackmoor, East Worldham and Bordon.

6

2.3 Responses from drop-in days

General comments 55 people called in at the drop-in events and all but one of the attendees gave their name and postcode. 32 wrote comments on the feedback forms.

Many of those who called in at the events expressed appreciation of the Common. Several had a long connection with the area and had lived in their properties close by the Common for many years. Callers at the open day included several who were accompanied by dogs. Callers at the indoor drop-in day included Parish Councillors. Many of the written comments were complimentary about the consultation and the information provided. There was widespread concern expressed about the proposed Eco-town and the additional pressure this will bring to the area.

3 Questionnaires

Questionnaires were included with letters to individuals and on the websites, and made available at the drop-in events and other local outlets. A total of 73 questionnaires was completed and returned for analysis. The following sections provide an evaluated summary of the reasons for visiting and patterns of use, respondents’ views on the current condition and management of the Common, and on future management options.

3.1 Visitor profile

Postcodes Of the 73 completed questionnaires, 70 respondents provided postcodes that could be mapped (Map 1). The majority of respondents who gave their postcodes live within the Common boundary, immediately adjacent to the Common or within 1km walking distance of Shortheath Common (many respondents gave identical postcodes). A total of 59 respondents (84%) lived within 1 km, 48 respondents (69%) within 0.5 km and 35 respondents (50%) within 100 metres of Shortheath Common. There were only two visitors from Bordon and a further two who gave postcodes from further away (Farnborough and Wrecclesham). Distances were calculated as the nearest distance from the postcode to the boundary of Shortheath Common. The two outliers (approximately 10 and 21 km) were left out of the calculation. The mean linear distance of postcodes of respondents to the nearest boundary was 0.56 km, the minimum distance 0 km and the maximum distance 5.612 km.

7

Map 1: Location of respondents’ home postcodes in relation to Shortheath Common.

3.2 Membership of wildlife conservation or amenity organisation

From a total of 73 questionnaires received, 27 respondents answered this question and had membership of one or more of the following 17 organisations:

RSPB 8 Trust 1 Hampshire & IOW Wildlife Trust 8 Forestry Commission 1 The National Trust 5 Ramblers Association 1 Woodland Trust 5 Open Spaces Society 1 World Wildlife Fund 3 British Association for Shooting & Conservation 1 Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust 2 Countryside Alliance 1 Butterfly Conservation 2 South Downs Land Management Group 1 British Trust for Ornithology 1 Environment Conservation Group (?) 1 British Dragonfly Society 1

46 respondents (63%) entered “no” or left the question blank. From a total of 43 memberships, 38 (88%) included national or regional wildlife conservation or related organisations while the remaining 5 (12%) were made up of other organisations, societies and clubs. Of the 17 organisations, societies or clubs listed, 12 (71%) are involved in wildlife conservation as a primary aim.

8

4 Reasons for visiting and patterns of use the Common

4.1 Reasons for visiting the Common

Many respondents identified more than one reason (from 9 named suggestions) for visiting the Common (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Reasons for visiting Shortheath Common (percentage shown for each category).

The most popular reasons given for visiting Shortheath Common were:

 Walking (27%), dog walking (19%) and quiet relaxation (17%), which together made up close to two thirds of all responses (63%).  The next most popular were cycling (10%) and nature study (9%).  A number of other activities were listed including jogging, horse riding, picnicking and fishing, which together made up 12% of responses.

Although this is a snapshot of the reasons people visited, many gave multiple answers totalling 209 responses. This suggests most people visit the Common for a variety of reasons. Some additional reasons why respondents visited the Common are given in the individual comments section.

4.2 Frequency of visits

Table 1: Frequency of visits to Shortheath Common. Frequency Daily Weekly Monthly Less often Number 32 23 6 8 Percentage 46 33 9 12

Under half (46%) of respondents visited the Common daily while a third (33%) visited weekly. A lower number of visitors frequented the Common once a month (9%) or less often (12%).

9

4.3 Travel methods

Table 2: Methods of arrival at Shortheath Common. Public Horsebox / Method On foot Car/van Bicycle Horse trans. lorry Number 53 16 10 5 0 0 Percentage 63 19 12 6 0 0

From a total of 84 answers, 63% involved arrival on foot and 19% arrival by car/van. A smaller number of arrivals were by bicycle (12%) and horseback (6%). None of the respondents arrived using public transport, horse box/lorry or by other means.

4.4 Amenities offered by the Common

From a panel of 16 options, respondents chose one or more amenities they thought the Common provided (Figure 2). This question also asked respondents to list additional amenities (see individual comments section).

Figure 2: Reasons for visiting Shortheath common (with number of responses for each amenity shown at ends of bars).

10

The total number of responses was 470 indicating that most respondents viewed the Common as providing several valuable amenities. Peace and quiet, scenery and landscape, wildlife, a wild place and open views together accounted for just less than half (45% combined) of all responses while long walks, circular walks and ‘good for dogs’ together accounted for just under a quarter (23% combined) of total responses. Similarly, access provision of the Common (‘access on foot’ and ‘access from your front door’) accounted for approximately a fifth (21%) of responses given. However, few responses (3%) suggested the Common as providing ease of access by car. A small number of responses highlighted the Common as a place to meet others (5%) or for other reasons (3%).

4.5 Other open spaces visited

This question asked respondents if they frequented other local open spaces for walking and riding (Figure 3). A total of 55 respondents listed 31 locations, most visiting multiple sites generating a total of 139 responses (site listings). The most popular 3 locations visited accounted for almost half (48%) of all responses and were as follows (number of respondents and percentage in parentheses): (28, 20%), Kingsley Common (20, 14%), Alice Holt Forest (19, 14%). The remaining 52% of responses consisted of 29 sites. Just under a quarter of these (23%) consisted of 4 sites: Broxhead Common (10, 7%), Frensham Ponds (9, 6%), (9, 6%) and Waggoner’s Wells (4, 3%). The remaining 25 locations were visited by 3 respondents or fewer, making 30% of total responses given.

Locations (14) with 1 listing 10%

Locations (11) with 2-3 listing 19%

Kingsley Common 14%

Selborne Common 6% Frensham Alice Holt Forest 14% Ponds 6% Broxhead Common 6%

Figure 3: Other open spaces visited (percentage of total responses shown). A total of 55 respondents listed 31 locations generating a total of 139 site listings

11

5 Respondents’ views on the condition and management of the Common

5.1 Concerns during visits to the Common

This question invited respondents to voice their concerns (Figure 4) from a panel of 14 options and also provided space for additional comments (see individual comments section).

Figure 4: Respondents’ concerns while visiting Shortheath Common (percentage of total responses shown).

From a total of 237 responses (ticks) the emergent trends were as follows:

 25% of concerns were related to cars either using the Common as a shortcut (17%) or parking on the Common (8%).  23% of concerns were related to dogs (dog mess – 15%, uncontrolled dogs – 8%).  11% of concerns were related to arson and wildfires.  9% of concerns were with regard to wildlife disturbance.  9% of concerns were related to vehicle track surfaces

There were few concerns regarding overcrowding (1%) and too much or too little noise (<1% combined). Other concerns registered accounted for 10% of responses. These are outlined in the individual comments section.

5.2 Concerns regarding dumped or stored garden items on the Common

Respondents were also asked if they were concerned about the dumping or storage of waste, materials, vehicles, machinery etc. on the Common, or about adjacent households using the Common as an extension of their garden. A total of 69 respondents gave an answer with over three-quarters (n= 53, 77%) expressing concern while a minority appeared unconcerned (n=16, 23%). The individual comments section gives more detail of visitors’ concerns.

12

5.3 Views on current management of the Common for visitors

Asked about current management of the Common for people (total 66 responses):

 59% (39 responses) thought management was ‘about right’.  26% (17 responses) thought management ‘needs changing’.  15% (10 responses) had no view.

Respondents were also asked about changes they would like to see. These are categorised in the individual comments section.

5.4 Views on current management of the Common for wildlife and scrub management

Of the 68 respondents (number in parentheses) who gave a view on management for wildlife:

 65% (44) thought it was ‘about right’.  24% (16) thought it ‘needs changing’.  12% (8) had no view.

Of the 69 respondents (number in parentheses) who gave a view on tree and scrub control:

 62% (42) thought it was ‘about right’.  25% (17) thought there was too much woodland.  15% (10) thought there was not enough woodland.

Respondents also suggested changes they would like to see regarding management for wildlife. These are listed in the individual comments section.

5.5 Views on information provision at Shortheath pond car park.

Of the 53 respondents (number in parentheses) who gave a view on the level of information provision for visitors:

 49% (33) thought there was enough information.  29% (20) thought there was not enough information.

Respondents also suggested changes they would like to see regarding provision of information (see individual comments section).

5.6 Views on taking part in management or other activities of the Common

A total of 31 respondents (42%) gave a view on whether they were interested in taking part in commons related management or other activities. Many were interested in taking part in more than one of the five suggested activities generating a total of 67 responses. Of these (number of responses in parentheses):

 27% (18) were expressions of interest in work parties.  24% (16) were expressions of interest in guided walks.  18% (12) were expressions of interest in friends groups.

13

 10% (7) were expressions of interest in education groups.  13% (9) were expressions of interest in events.  7% (5) were expressions of interest in other activities.

6 Respondents’ views on future management options

6.1 Views about main management options

Respondents were asked for their views (Table 3) and comments (individual comments section) on management options required to keep Shortheath Common in good condition and preventing heathland areas from turning to grassland and scrub. Options included controlled burning, grazing, mowing and - stripping. Table 3 shows respondents’ views on the four main management options being considered for the future.

Table 3: Views of respondents towards management options. Management option: Responses (percentage in parentheses) Like to see Not like to see Don't know Total Controlled burning 27 (44%) 24 (39%) 11 (18%) 62 Grazing 40 (63%) 13 (21%) 10 (16%) 63 Mowing 20 (33%) 26 (43%) 14 (23%) 60 Turf-stripping 13 (25%) 27 (51%) 13 (25%) 53

 Of the 4 management options 63% of respondents were keen to see grazing.  A little under half of respondents (44%) were keen to see controlled burning.  Only a third (33%) of respondents were keen on mowing as a management option while the least favoured was turf-stripping (25%).  Regarding options they would not like see, approximately half (51%) of respondents selected turf- stripping, 43% mowing and 39% controlled burning.  About a fifth (21%) of respondents would not like to see grazing.  The level of uncertainty (‘don’t know’) was highest regarding turf-stripping (25%) and mowing (23%) and lowest regarding controlled burning (18%) and grazing (16%).

Respondents also gave comments regarding management options (see individual comments section).

14

6.2 Views on types of livestock

Respondents were asked for their views (Table 4) and comments (individual comments section) on stock types if grazing were to be considered for the Common.

Table 4: Views of respondents on grazing stock options. Stock type: Responses (percentage in parentheses) Like to see Not like to see Don't know Total responses Sheep 31 (53%) 23 (40%) 4 (7%) 58 Cattle 31 (53%) 22 (37%) 6 (10%) 59 Ponies 29 (54%) 20 (37%) 5 (9%) 54 Goats 23 (44%) 24 (46%) 5 (10%) 52 Combination of above 23 (51%) 16 (36%) 6 (13%) 45

 Respondents viewed the grazing stock options fairly evenly with the most favoured being ponies (54%) and least favoured goats (44%). Sheep, cattle or a combination of all stock options fell in between these two values (53, 53 and 51 % respectively).  Conversely, the highest proportion of respondents (46%) would not like to see goats grazing on the Common while the lowest number (36%) not in favour applied to a combination of stock.  The level of uncertainty (don’t know) ranged between 7-13% for all options given, with uncertainty regarding a combination the highest (13%) and as regarding sheep the lowest (7%).

6.3 Views on types of grazing stock control

Respondents were asked for their views (Table 5) and comments (individual comments section) on each of the stock containment options being considered for the Common.

Table 5: Views of respondents on grazing stock containment. Stock containment: Responses (percentage in parenthesis) Like to see Not like to see Don't know Total Several small fenced enclosures 12 (24%) 31 (63%) 6 (12%) 49 A few large fenced enclosures 15 (31%) 27 (55%) 7 (14%) 49 Perimeter fencing including sides of road between Oakhanger and B3004 where it crosses the Common 12 (26%) 30 (65%) 4 (9%) 46 Perimeter fencing but not roadsides, with cattle grids on the road across the Common 34 (59%) 21 (36%) 3 (5%) 58

 The most favoured view on stock containment chosen by respondents was for perimeter fencing with cattle grids on the road across the Common (59%).  A fairly even number of respondents would like to see the other three options with responses ranging between 24% and 31%.  Three of the options were not viewed favourably by half to two-thirds of respondents. Roughly two thirds were not keen on perimeter fencing including roadsides of the road from Oakhanger to the B3004

15

as it crosses the Common (65%), or on several small fenced enclosures (63%). A little over a half (55%) were also not keen on a few large fenced enclosures as an option.  Roughly a third (36%) were not keen on perimeter fencing with cattle grids.  The level of uncertainty (‘Don’t know’) ranged from 5-14% across the options given with the highest level of uncertainty for large fenced enclosures (14%) and the lowest for perimeter fencing with cattle grids (5%).

7 Responses by letter or email from organisations and individuals

7.1 The Ramblers Association

The Ramblers Association acknowledged receipt of the consultation but made no further comment

7.2 Open Spaces Society

The Open Spaces Society acknowledged receipt of the consultation but made no further comment. The General Secretary of the Open Spaces Society made a visit to the Common accompanied by staff from Hampshire County Council and the Footprint Ecology.

7.3 East Hampshire District Council

East Hampshire District Council acknowledged receipt of the consultation but made no further comment.

7.4 Hampshire County Ecologist and Hampshire Biological Records Officer

Both acknowledged receipt of the consultation but made no further comment.

7.5 Natural England

Natural England acknowledged receipt of the consultation and undertook to attend one or both ‘drop-in’ events.

7.6 Amphibian and Reptile Conservation

Amphibian and Reptile Conservation expressed broad support for aims and methods but stressed the need for (and difficulty of achieving) the right balance in management for all species and habitats.

7.7 Hampshire Countryside Access Forum

Hampshire Countryside Access Forum (HCAF) welcomed the consultation and the considered and well- balanced material circulated. HCAF encouraged continued recognition of the needs of all access users and the need for local consultation. The strong views of some members of the Forum against the use of cattle grids as a means of stock control was reported, especially if there are horses, ponies or deer in the vicinity. The needs of disabled users were also flagged.

16

7.8 Woolmer Forest Heritage Society

Woolmer Forest Heritage Society acknowledged receipt of the consultation and added that, as the report states, there are Mesolithic sites in the area, but also Bronze Age material. They advised that if any turf- stripping or earth moving is undertaken on the Common, the exposed surface should be checked by an archaeologist.

7.9 Butterfly Conservation

Butterfly Conservation acknowledged receipt of the consultation but made no further comment.

7.10 British Horse Society

The British Horse Society (BHS) local representative made the point that Shortheath Common is one of several fragments of the former Woolmer Forest and felt that these should be managed as a whole. This would mean establishing a network of greenways, using the rights of way network to some extent, to link the fragments and provide for better access and wildlife movement. It was also noted that the various houses on the Common have their own accesses and it was difficult and expensive to fence the area while maintaining these accesses, each of which would need cattle grids and bypass gates. BHS felt it did not seem justifiable for such a small area.

7.11 Environment Agency

The Environment Agency (EA) fully supports the sensitive management of areas such as Shortheath Common and would be happy to advise on management where appropriate.

The is classified as ‘main river’ and certain works on this, or within a short distance – and also some works on other minor water courses - may need flood defence consents if proposed. Any use of herbicides close to water would need EA permission. Pollution arising from large scale tree felling, turf- stripping or burning could affect water courses and should have buffer zones in place. Waste material removed, including chipped arisings, would need a waste exemption licence. The offer of advice was also made in relation to grazing animals and water supply, and the implications of the Water Framework Directive.

7.12 Responses from individuals

Individual email 1 The correspondent had also completed a questionnaire response but was adding further comment. There was a feeling within the community that attempts by rangers to control activities (in favour of wildlife) such as use of tracks by vehicles, cycles and horse riders, and in particular dogs off leads, were rather heavy handed and not conducive to sympathetic response. Some doubt about the validity of nesting bird species was expressed. On the other hand, reported dumping of waste was often not acted upon swiftly. More direct involvement of the community in managing the Common would be appreciated and a bench and dog bins were needed. More explanations of management actions, such as tree removal, are needed.

Individual email 2 The correspondent had also completed a questionnaire. This return stressed the need for more information and education about the interest and status of the Common, stressing the lack or inadequacy of signage to direct activities. There was also much concern about rubbish dumping and slowness in response (including from the Environment Agency). The lack of resources for site managers, and also general apathy within the community were cited though the efforts of the ranger were appreciated.

17

Individual email 3 This correspondent had also completed a questionnaire. The concern here was for better linking of the bridleway network, between this Common and other sites in the vicinity, together with several specific suggestions.

Individual email 4 This correspondent had also completed a questionnaire. This return stressed the value to invertebrates of certain natural features such as bare ground and nectar-bearing plants. The status and ecological requirements of several scarce invertebrate species were also outlined, to inform management decisions. The free-running of dogs was also criticised.

Individual email 5 The correspondent was very sympathetic to the need to safeguard the Common but anguished by the heavy and fast traffic using the road across the site and the danger to walkers, children and animals. This issue should be dealt with in tandem with conservation of the Common.

Individual email 6 This correspondent had also completed a questionnaire. This return expressed concern, also from the community, that the proposed Eco-town will see a doubling of traffic through Oakhanger and along the road across the Common. It was suggested that to control this and reduce the impact, the use of cattle grids (for grazing) and a speed limit might be the answer.

8 Summary of responses

8.1 Questionnaire responses on reasons for visiting and patterns of use

 A little under half (46%) of visits made to Shortheath Common were for walking, with or without a dog, while about a quarter came for either quiet relaxation and nature study (26% combined) and approximately a fifth for physical activity including cycling, jogging and horse riding (19% combined).  Fewer than half the visitors came daily (46%) while a third (33%) came at least once a week and only 9% monthly.  The majority of visitors (63%) arrived at Shortheath Common on foot while approximately a fifth (19%) arrived by car/van, 12% by bicycle and 6% by horse.  The reasons for visiting and patterns of use of the Common reflected the closeness of home locations of visitors, which averaged approximately 0.6km. Half of all respondents lived inside the Common boundary or within 100 metres of the boundary.  A high number of visitors appreciated the intrinsic value of Shortheath Common in terms of its peace and quiet, scenery, landscape, wildlife and perception of being a ‘wild place’. Also high on the list of values offered by the site were its ease of on-foot and front-door access. The length and circular nature of walks and suitability for walking dogs was also keenly appreciated.  A significant majority of respondents to the question (88%) were members of a national or regional wildlife conservation body or similar organisation with the combined membership of the National Trust, Woodland Trust, RSPB and Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust accounting for 60% of the total memberships.  Many of the visitors frequented alternative sites in the surrounding area including Binswood Common, Kingsley Common, Broxhead Common and Alice Holt Forest, which together, made up over half of other open spaces visited.

18

8.2 Questionnaire responses on visitor management

 A quarter of respondents were concerned about the use of motorised vehicles on the Common either using it as a shortcut, parking or illegal use. The former included commercial vehicles and/or cars using tracks on the Common. Another quarter of visitors (23%) also had concerns relating to dogs, regarding either dog mess or dogs not being under appropriate control. A smaller number (11%) were concerned about arson and wildfires, disturbance to wildlife (9%) and the status of tracks on the Common (9%) although this last concern is also related to vehicles on the Common.  Over three-quarters of respondents were concerned at the level of dumping or storage of waste, materials, vehicles, machinery etc. on the Common. There was also some concern that encroachment was taking place with several properties named (see individual comments)  Even so, 59% of visitors thought that visitor management was about right and a majority (65%) of visitors also thought that current management for wildlife was about right. Nearly two-thirds of visitors (62%) thought that tree and scrub management was at the right level.  Approximately half (49%) thought that the level of information provided to visitors was about right.  42% of visitors were interested in becoming involved in active management of the Common in the form of work parties, guided walks, friends and educational groups and other events/activities.

8.3 Questionnaire responses on habitat management

 With respect to the future management options being considered for Shortheath Common, approximately two-thirds of visitors (63%) were keen to see grazing as the option they would like to see regarding the control of vegetation. A little under half (44%) of the visitors chose controlled burning while a third (33%) chose mowing and a quarter (25%) turf-stripping.  Grazing had the least level of objection (21%) while over a half (51%) of respondents did not favour turf- stripping. Mowing and burning also received higher levels of objection (43% and 39% respectively) than grazing.  When asked for opinions on types of stock, visitors did not express a clear preference for one type of animal. Ponies had the most favoured response (54%) with goats the least favourable response (44%). The other options were similar to ponies (from 51 to 53%). The highest level of objection received (46%) was to goats as a stock option.  In terms of stock containment, the most favourable response (59%) was given to perimeter fencing with cattle grids on the road across the Common. This also received the lowest ‘would not like to see’ response at 36%.  The three other options all received much less support (between 24% and 31%) as well as a high level of objection (between 55% and 65%) and thus were not viewed favourably.

8.4 Questionnaire comments

 There were various additional comments regarding reasons for visiting Shortheath Common but a majority confirmed that it was because they lived in the immediate vicinity of the Common and thus visited regularly, predominantly on foot.

19

 A high number of concerns related to the use of motorised vehicles (cars, vans, lorries, motorbikes, quad bikes) on the Common, causing erosion, noise and disturbance. There was also concern over dumped rubbish, of too many horses damaging footpaths and of uncontrolled dogs and dog mess.  There were many concerns regarding general dumping, fly-tipping and litter as well as encroachment of various properties onto the Common. Specific properties were mentioned.  Suggested changes to visitor management included more information (especially regarding wildlife), better regulation of vehicles on the Common, stronger measures taken against dumping/fly-tipping and regulation of dogs, as well as more dog bins.  A number of visitors requested more information be made available with respect to wildlife, maps/walking and restriction/guidance regarding dogs, horses and motorised vehicles. A number also pointed out that information should be placed at several access points (esp. Oakhanger village) and not just at the pond car park. Many felt the Common would benefit from educative information on the importance and sensitivity of the heathland and its wildlife.  Concerning changes to the management of wildlife, key suggestions were more tree and scrub management, more resources made available for management of the Common and better regulation of vehicles and dogs with respect to wildlife disturbance.  There was a little support for the protection and management of the Common including some support for grazing and greater tree and scrub clearance but some locals were also concerned that ‘heavy’ management and fencing would ruin the ‘natural’ feel of the Common.  Chief concerns regarding grazing included the incompatibility between livestock and dogs while several locals were also concerned about safety (especially of children) around livestock and of the animals themselves (from rustling).  There was some support for fencing, but an equal number that were not enthusiastic, primarily due to the visual effect it would bring but also with regard to accessibility and the implied cost.

9 Management actions and recommendations

Shortheath Common is an important area of common land in east Hampshire, supporting scarce wildlife. It is a cultural landscape, rich in historic connections, from the Mesolithic period through to its more recent history. While it is still predominantly a heathland Common, there are areas of acidic grassland, scrub and trees, and an expanse of mire and bog woodland that is a rare feature in southern England.

It is an open space, well used by local people for recreation, and the whole site is important for wildlife, with national and international designations for its heathland habitat and birds. The site has recently been assessed by Natural England as being in ‘unfavourable recovering’ condition, with the ‘recovering’ aspect due in part the ongoing programme of scrub control and provisions for scarce invertebrates. Such management is essential to reach and maintain ‘favourable condition’ and so ensure the future of the European site and its associated species.

The habitat management actions were described in the background paper that was part of the consultation. The analysis of the responses from individuals and organisations is presented above and can be seen to refer to habitat management for wildlife and management to improve visitors’ enjoyment of the site. A brief summary of comments is given in a box at the beginning of each sub-section. These responses have assisted in developing recommendations for management of the Common, which are included under each section and presented together at the end.

20

9.1 Habitat management

Some 65% of respondents thought the management for wildlife on the Common is about right, with 63% in favour of grazing and 44% supporting controlled burning. Fewer (33%) supported mowing and a smaller number (25%) turf-stripping. 21% were not in favour of grazing.

In order to provide maximum variety and structure for the benefit of the plants and animals of heathland, mire and grassland, and to achieve and maintain favourable condition, a variety of management techniques is essential. Burning and mowing are single event activities that diversify the vegetation on a patch basis and remove nutrients. Grazing is a gradual process able to provide a more subtle structural diversity to vegetation. It complements other management activities and maintains some bare ground and variety in the height of the vegetation and can encourage heather and control grass. Used on a small scale, turf-stripping is a valuable way of providing bare ground for invertebrates and reptiles. It needs to take account of archaeology and plan for spoil disposal.

Recommendation Management of Shortheath Common should make full use of a combination of the main heathland management techniques including grazing, mowing, controlled burning and localised turf-stripping.

9.1.1 Scrub and tree clearance

A little under two thirds of respondents (62%) thought that tree cover is at about the right level, 25% thought that there are too many trees and 15% too few.

Heathland and grassland are landscapes that have been heavily influenced by people for thousands of years. In the absence of continuing use and management, much of the open land will turn to woodland and scrub. This can readily be seen on parts of the Common where, without recent management, dense stands of self- sown trees have resulted. However, it is important to maintain some trees as wildlife and landscape features and areas of scrub as wildlife habitat by rotational cutting.

Recommendation Assess the current extent of encroaching trees and scrub to draw up a programme for clearance and management of retained scrub and trees. Where feasible, encourage the local community to make use of felled wood and logs.

9.1.2 Turf-stripping

Twice as many respondents were not in favour (51% of responses) than in favour (25%), with an equal number (25)% undecided.

This technique can be used to restore areas of heath and creates valuable bare ground habitat for invertebrates and reptiles. Turf cutting was once a traditional practice providing a renewable source of fuel. The modern equivalent involves taking off the top few centimetres of material to remove nutrients and encourage regeneration of heather from the seed bank. The high number in opposition and relatively high number of undecided responses probably reflects unfamiliarity with this practice but used on a small scale it can be a valuable accompaniment to other heathland management. Archaeological advice is essential to help decide where this technique is most appropriate.

21

Recommendation Use the opportunity of walks and interpretation to illustrate the value of small patches of bare ground for wildlife and especially invertebrates. Involve archaeologists and invertebrate specialists in helping to identify suitable areas for localised turf-stripping, including disposal of the stripped material.

9.1.3 Burning

Rather less than half of respondents (44%) approved of controlled winter burning, with nearly as many (39%) not in favour. 18% were undecided. There were concerns about the risks associated with burning as a management technique.

Controlled burning is used to break up even-aged heather areas and re-start the heather growth cycle for the benefit of associated wildlife. It can remove some of the accumulated nutrients from the heath, but can encourage grasses and bracken if carried out too often. Burning usually takes place in late winter and covers small areas within fire breaks that have been mown beforehand.

Not all areas can be burned (e.g. areas close to housing, roads, car parks, overhead lines) and it is normally unwise to burn into bracken areas (as this encourages bracken dominance) or on areas dominated by purple moor- grass without subsequent grazing. Burning is weather-dependent and a wet spring can severely curtail planned burning programmes. Climate change with wetter winters may contribute to these uncertainties.

Recommendation Decide if burns are necessary to restart heather cycles anywhere on the Common and if so prepare a programme of controlled burning, of no more than 0.5 hectares annually, in selected areas. Before any burning takes place, inform nearby properties of its timing and duration, explaining the reasons and ensure the operation is staffed well by trained personnel.

9.1.4 Mowing

One third (33%) of respondents were in favour of mowing with more (43%) not in favour. 23% were undecided about mowing.

Mowing can be used to control bracken, maintain areas of acid grassland and remove nutrients, provided the cut material is taken off. It can also be helpful in establishing a cycle of heather management. Mowing is not practically possible on uneven, steep or very wet ground, and machinery has to be carefully chosen to avoid soil compaction. Mowing is valuable as a restoration technique to remove tall vegetation and thick litter prior to grazing. Both mown and to a lesser extent, burnt areas, may encourage pedestrians, riders etc to use previously undisturbed areas and open up new desire lines and paths. Therefore the siting of areas for cutting or burning needs to take this into account, as well as the requirements for vegetation management for wildlife conservation reasons.

Recommendation Use mowing as appropriate and in combination with other management techniques.

22

9.1.5 Grazing

Just under two thirds (63%) of respondents supported grazing with 21% not in favour. Some respondents mentioned successful grazing on other sites.

Grazing is a traditional management practice on heathland and grassland commons and on the few commons where it has persisted, it has played an important role in keeping the land open over the years. Grazing has been adopted as a sustainable and ecologically enhancing form of management by heathland managers across the heathlands of north-west Europe, with the re-introduction of traditional management practices and original breeds. Grazing and light trampling on lowland heaths can maintain the balance between heather and mire communities and prevent domination by grasses, can contribute to the reduction of nutrient levels and the establishment and maintenance of species and structural diversity, and create niches that contribute to the richness of the wildlife communities.

Grazing does not remove significant amounts of nutrients from the heath (although substantial amounts can be transferred off the heath into surrounding woodland, if livestock are free to wander) but helps to maintain lower nutrient levels. Both under and over-grazing can cause problems, but on many heathlands light spring to autumn grazing is the normal practice. The effect of grazing on tree and shrub encroachment can be variable depending on the type and density of stock, but generally grazing animals delay encroachment rather than stop it, and periodic scrub clearance will still be necessary.

Recommendation Introduce grazing to the whole Common, as part of the combination of techniques available for effective heathland and grassland management.

9.1.6 Type of grazing stock

Almost equal numbers of respondents were in favour of grazing by ponies (54%), cattle (53%) and sheep (53%) with a similar number (51%) in favour of a combination of animals. Rather fewer (44%) of respondents were in favour of goats, with a main concern for goats and sheep being from dogs or rustling.

Sheep are close and selective grazers, creating and maintaining a very short sward. They can damage heather by grazing, especially in autumn and on areas recovering from management treatments. On wet heath, sheep grazing of purple moor-grass can be ineffectual unless accompanied by cutting or burning. Free-range sheep are particularly vulnerable to attacks by dogs and where they have been used on public open spaces there have been many such incidents.

Ponies tend to graze grassland on heaths, will generally move further into wet vegetation to graze than sheep and cattle, and will graze tall and rough vegetation including dead leaves and stems. They are therefore ideal for grazing on purple moor-grass, which produces much dead material and grows in wetter areas. Ponies can become problematic if fed by visitors and free-range ponies can pose problems for horse riders (though this is especially the case with stallions, which should not be used).

Cattle grazing has many similarities with grazing by ponies, as cattle will graze mostly grasses and will forage in tall and tussocky vegetation. They can damage heather by trampling but tend to use dry heath mainly as a route to water or forage areas, or to lie up rather than grazing there. Their footprints on wet ground create niches for other plants and invertebrates. Cows with young calves can be protective, particularly when approached by dogs, but older cows from traditional breeds are very docile and are widely used for grazing open access heathland.

23

Recommendation The use of sheep and goats for grazing the Common is not practical with loose dogs. Grazing on the Common should be primarily by cattle during the spring and summer, with ponies grazing all the year round to be implemented if possible as an additional benefit. Maximum stocking rate could start at about 1 animal per 15 hectares but could be varied in light of experience; the number of animals may need to be adjusted once their performance has been assessed. Cows (without young calves) of a traditional docile breed should be used, along with Exmoor or ponies.

There will clearly be major considerations and preparations to be made if this recommendation is implemented. These will include:  Involving users of the Common and rights holders  Carrying out a risk assessment for livestock introduction  Deciding when to graze  Identifying additional grazing land to which the animals can be moved (e.g. in winter)  Sourcing livestock  Handling and moving livestock  Acclimatising livestock to visitors and vice versa  Assessing and monitoring welfare of the animals

9.1.7 Management of grazing

A majority of respondents (59%) were in favour of perimeter fencing of the whole Common with cattle grids on the road. Numbers that favoured the other three options were smaller but similar to each other, with 31% supporting a few large enclosures and 24% several smaller ones. 26% supported fencing the perimeter including fencing out the road. This was also the option that the largest number of people said they would not like to see (65%), closely matched by opposition to several small enclosures (63%). Concerns were expressed about the cost of fences and effects on access.

The options for grazing management set out in the options appraisal and questionnaire were shepherding (which is currently only practical with sheep) and either temporary or permanent fencing as enclosures or as fences around the perimeter of the Common. A variation on this last option would be to include the road within the perimeter, with stock able to cross between the two parts of the Common, controlled by cattle grids.

Shepherding Very little information is available on shepherding schemes for types of stock other than sheep, and there are no examples in the UK of shepherded cattle on open heathland. Cattle are not as amenable as sheep to control by dogs and shepherding is not an option for ponies.

Temporary electric fences Under the Commons Act, there is a restriction on fenced enclosures to 10ha or 10% of any common registration unit, whichever is less. On Shortheath Common, this restriction would mean that, with the maximum enclosure size of 6ha, the area that could be grazed in any one year would be limited. Small grazing enclosures can target grazing on particular areas, but there is a higher risk of over-grazing the enclosure than with large areas. Livestock confined in such enclosures can be more vulnerable to dogs and fire, and labour resources to manage them and move around fences and water can be high. Each enclosed area would also require adequate provision for access. Temporary electric fencing around the perimeter of the Common would generate very large labour demands in regular checking and would be vulnerable to breakage, damage, theft and vandalism, and therefore escape of livestock.

24

Permanent perimeter fencing Any fencing scheme would have to preserve all existing access points with appropriate gates and suitable access for cyclists, horse riders and disabled visitors. Full account would have to be taken of the needs of all users in deciding the detail of access provision. Vehicular access points would need gates, or cattle grids with appropriate by-pass arrangements for horses. In areas of high visibility, fences are best hidden in dips or behind banks or concealed by existing scrub and trees.

The best option for permanent fencing would be constructing fences as close as practicable to the perimeter of the Common and including the section of road that bisects the Common. If this option were pursued, cattle grids would be needed at suitable points at both ends of the road, with bypass gates for horses and pedestrians, and would only be progressed subject to adequate safety audits by Hampshire Highways.

Permanent perimeter fencing would be the least intrusive option and of least inconvenience to visitors who would have to pass only one gate going in and one going out. Nevertheless, it would be necessary to install suitable gates on all access points, though a single perimeter fence would allow maximum freedom to grazing stock to follow natural patterns of extensive grazing.

Recommendation Permanent perimeter fencing is the preferred option, securing the boundaries of the whole Common, including the stretch of road with cattle grids (subject to audit by Hampshire Highways). Small enclosures are seen as more labour intensive, more intrusive and a less effective way of promoting extensive grazing over the whole of the Common. Further consultation with users of the Common will be necessary to arrive at the most acceptable scheme.

9.1.8 Survey and monitoring

It will be desirable to monitor the effects of habitat management in future years. The extent of survey and monitoring will depend on available resources but could include:  Fixed point photography  Regular survey of plants, birds, invertebrates and other groups if the right expertise is available.

Some monitoring -e.g. breeding birds, butterflies - could be assisted by interested local people.

Recommendation Encourage the local community to assist with aspects of survey and monitoring e.g. through workshops/guided walks.

25

9.2 Management for people

77% of respondents were concerned about storage of materials, garden encroachments and unauthorised tipping on the Common. 25% of concerns were related to vehicles using the Common as a short cut (17%) or for parking (8%). 23% of concerns expressed were about dog-related issues (dog mess, uncontrolled dogs etc). Of those who expressed a view on the topic, 15% were concerned about dog mess, 8% were concerned about uncontrolled dogs, and fewer (2%) were unhappy about professional dog-walkers.

9.2.1 Principal concerns of respondents

Unauthorised tipping and storage of materials/equipment and extension of gardens onto the Common attracted significant comment – 77% of respondents expressed concern while 23% were unconcerned. Aside from this, the main concerns were related to dogs and dog walkers, and the use of vehicles on the Common. There were roughly equal concerns about unauthorised fires, the surface of paths and tracks and the disturbance of wildlife (9-11% of respondents). A need has been highlighted for more information for visitors to the Common, including on management and wildlife.

Recommendation A discussion should be facilitated in the community as to how the problems of vehicle use, the use of the Common for storage of vehicles and materials, dog mess and lack of control over dogs can be dealt with, and how the addressing of these issues could be fairly resourced.

9.2.2 Community liaison

Whilst a majority of respondents (59%) felt that management of Shortheath Common for visitors is ‘about right’ it is apparent that there are many current issues and concerns, and others will arise over time. In order to address these and to keep abreast of feelings in the community, or if changes affecting the public use of the site are proposed, it will be desirable to for the managers of the Common and the local community to be in regular contact. Further local community involvement will also be desirable.

Recommendation Managers of the Common should keep in touch with the local community for instance by maintaining or instigating events such as walks and talks, attending the meetings of the Parish Council with a short report on a regular basis and by continuing to contribute to local newsletters with the latest news and proposals for future management of the Common.

10 Further consultations

It is important that Hampshire County Council seeks consensus on the future management of Shortheath Common. If the recommendations above are adopted, then further consultations with local communities will be needed. In particular, if grazing is to be implemented as suggested then livestock management or containment will be necessary, and will require a further consultation.

Recommendation Undertake a further consultation, including all previous consultees, on a preferred option for fencing and grazing based on maps of proposals.

26

11 Summary of recommendations

11.1 Management of Shortheath Common should make full use of a combination of the main heathland management techniques including grazing, mowing, controlled burning and localised turf-stripping.

11.2 Assess the current extent of encroaching trees and scrub to draw up a programme for clearance and management of retained scrub and trees.

11.3 Use the opportunity of walks and interpretation to illustrate the value of small patches of bare ground for wildlife and especially invertebrates. Involve archaeologists and invertebrate specialists in helping to identify suitable areas for localised turf-stripping, including disposal of the stripped material.

11.4 Decide if burns are necessary to restart heather cycles anywhere on the Common and if so prepare a programme of controlled burning, of no more than 0.5 hectares annually, in selected areas. Before any burning takes place, inform nearby properties of its timing and duration, explaining the reasons and ensure the operation is staffed well by trained personnel.

11.5 Use mowing as appropriate and in combination with other management techniques.

11.6 Introduce grazing to the whole Common, as part of the combination of techniques available for effective heathland and grassland management.

11.7 Grazing on the Common should be primarily by cattle during the spring and summer, with ponies grazing all the year round to be implemented if possible as an additional benefit. Maximum stocking rate could start at about 1 animal per 15 hectares but could be varied in the light of experience; the number of animals may need to be adjusted once their performance has been assessed. Cows (without young calves) of a traditional docile breed should be used, along with Exmoor or New Forest ponies.

11.8 Permanent perimeter fencing is the preferred option, securing the boundaries of the whole Common, including the stretch of road with cattle grids (subject to highway authority audit). Small enclosures are seen as more labour intensive, more intrusive and a less effective way of promoting extensive grazing over the whole of the Common. Further consultation with users of the Common will be necessary to arrive at the most acceptable scheme.

11.9 Encourage the local community to assist with aspects of survey and monitoring e.g. through workshops/guided walks.

11.10 A discussion should be facilitated in the community as to how the problem of vehicle use and the use of the Common for storage of vehicles and materials can be dealt with, and if better control of dogs and dog mess can be dealt with, and how the addressing of these issues could be fairly resourced.

11.12 Managers of the Common should keep in touch with the local community for instance by maintaining or instigating events such as walks and talks, attending the meetings of the Parish Council with a short report on a regular basis and by continuing to contribute to local newsletters with the latest news and proposals for future management of the Common.

11.13 Undertake a further consultation, including all previous consultees, on a preferred option for fencing and grazing based on maps of proposals.

27

Appendix 1

Summary of comments from individuals

This appendix contains a summary of comments received from respondents who filled out a questionnaire and supplied comments in the appropriate boxes. The sections (e.g. Question A1) refer to the questions from the questionnaire.

Reasons for visiting and patterns of use

Question A1: Additional reasons for visiting Shortheath Common Reasons for visiting the Common (total of 13 comments) in addition to those suggested in the questionnaire and displayed in Figure 1, fall into a several different categories (number of comments in parentheses):

 Live locally (8)  Guided walks (1)  Photography (1)  Dragonfly recording (1)  Party games (1)  Other comments/statements (1)

Question B1: Additional amenities offered by the Common Additional amenities offered by the Common (total of 16 comments, several with multiple amenities) in addition to those suggested in the questionnaire and displayed in Figure 2, fall into a number of different categories (number of comments in parentheses):

 Live locally (6)  Reiteration of listed purposes or amenities (see Figures 1 and 2) (5)  Tree climbing, exploring, hide and seek (1)  Photography (1)  Exercise, mental health (1)  To train dog (1)  To look at frog/toad spawn (1)  Right of way links (1)  Other comments/statements (3)

Respondents’ concerns on the condition of the Common

Question B2: Additional concerns during visits to the Common There was a wide range of concerns (total of 24 comments outlining 30 concerns) reflected in the comments in addition to the panel of 14 offered on the questionnaire. These are categorised as follows (number of comments in parentheses):

 Vehicles (cars/commercial): o Commercial vehicles using tracks (4) o Cars using tracks (1) o Cars bypassing tracks where main ones are badly eroded (1)

28

o Cars driving too fast (1) o Noise of traffic (1)  Motorbikes/quad bikes on the Common (noise and danger) (5)  Dumped rubbish (3)  Horses: o Too many horses (1) o Legality of horses on the Common (2) o Horses damaging footpaths (1)  Dogs: o Not enough dog-mess bins (2) o Uncontrolled dogs chasing horses (1)  Messy fisherman, dogs eating fishermen’s faeces (2)  Abundance of ragwort (1)  Trees surrounding property too high (1)  Erosion of footpaths (1)  Other comments/statements (2)

A high number of comments referred to the use of motorised vehicles (cars, commercial vehicles, motorcycles, quad bikes) on the Common, either on tracks or otherwise. Other comments highlighted by more than one respondent related to the dumping of rubbish, the use of horses on the Common and the lack of dog bins. The remainder were largely individual concerns.

Question B3: Additional concerns regarding dumped or stored items There was a wide range of concerns regarding dumped or stored items on the Common (total of 32 comments outlining a number of additional concerns). These are categorised as follows (number of comments in parentheses):

 General concern regarding dumping, fly-tipping or litter (11) o Scrap vehicles (2) o Washing machine (1) o Messy gardens (1) o Specific properties (2)  Dumped rubbish not removed quickly enough (3)  Concerns regarding encroachment on to the Common (6) o General (4) o One property taking over part of Common for parking (1) o One property extending garden onto Common (1)  Flouting of planning laws (2)  Other comments/statements (8)

The majority of additional comments reiterated the general concern for rubbish dumping while a few were particularly concerned about particular aspects of dumping, either specific items (cars) or by specific properties. A high number of comments referred to encroachment with several naming specific properties.

29

Respondents’ views on the management of the Common

Question B4: Suggested changes to current management of the Common for visitors There was a wide range of suggestions (total of 26 comments) regarding suggested management changes to the Common for visitors. These are categorised as follows (number of comments in parentheses):

 Information: o More information on importance (designated status), sensitivity and understanding of wildlife (4) o Fewer signs (spoils rural aspect) (1) o More information on available paths/tracks (1)  Vehicles: o More control of motorised vehicles on Common (1) o Speed limit (1) o Better track surfacing for vehicles (1)  Vegetation management: o Better management of trees and ragwort (1) o Leaving felled tree wood for locals to collect (1) o Less tree felling (1)  Control measures: o Stronger action against offenders/fly-tipping (3) o More control of business activities on Common (1)  Access: o Linking up bridleways with surrounding Commons (1) o Less access (1)  More dog bins (3)  More warden visibility (1)  No seating (1)  Other comments/statements (5)

Several suggestions referred to greater information provision on the wildlife of the Common while more than one respondent suggested better provision of dog bins and stronger action against fly-tippers and ‘offenders’ (the latter were not defined). The majority of suggested comments were of an individual nature reflecting a wide variety of views by the respondent pool. Even so, many suggestions could be grouped into broad areas relating to ‘information’, ‘vehicles’, ‘vegetation management’, ‘control measures’ and ‘access’.

Question B5: Suggested changes to the management of the Common for wildlife There were fewer suggested changes to the management of the Common for wildlife (total of 23 comments). These are categorised as follows (number of comments in parentheses):

 Habitats: o More resources for management of the Common (4) o Less scrub (bracken, bramble, birch, overgrown gorse) (4) o Grazing (1) o Nest boxes (1)

30

 People: o Better regulation of motorised vehicles (3) o More information (educational, interpretive) on wildlife (2) o Regulation of dog access in some areas (2)  Other comments/statement (9)

Many of the comments were in favour of improving practices and protection for wildlife through management of both habitats (scrub control, grazing) and people (more information, education and regulation). A number of suggestions related to increasing resources (funding, manpower) for Common management and to reducing the level of trees and scrub on the Common.

Question B10: Respondents’ views on provision of information There was a range of suggestions (total of 28 comments) regarding information provision for users of the Common. These are categorised as follows (number of comments in parentheses):

 Support for more information (18) o Wildlife (habitats, plants, animals) (7) o Maps (3) o ‘No dog litter’ signs (2) o Walks (1) o Dos and don’ts / warnings (1)  Would like to see provision at other access points, especially at Oakhanger village (4)  Would not like to see more information (2)  Unsure (2)  Other (3)

A significant majority was in favour of additional information provision regarding various aspects of the Common. This included educational information on the variety, value and sensitivity of the wildlife as well as requests for signs conveying restrictions, such as ‘No dog litter’ signs. Several local people pointed out that they rarely visited the pond car park, thus would like to see information at other access points including Oakhanger village.

Respondents’ views on future management options

Question B7: Additional concerns on future management options There were various comments relating to future management options of the Common (total of 27 comments). These are categorised as follows (number of comments in parentheses):

 General support for protection and management of the Common (6)  Support for grazing (6)  Support for burning, mowing and cutting if on small scale (1)  Concern for spoiling or ruining the ‘natural’ feel of the Common (5)  Concern on the landscape looking ‘worse’ after previous County Council management (3)  Turf cutting unsightly (1)  Against burning (2)  Other comments/statements (5)

31

A good number of comments were supportive of measures that protected and managed the Common but a few were also concerned that management should be appropriate and should not interfere with the amenity value or access. Of the listed options only grazing gained wide support. A number of comments reflected the concern of visitors that the area might be spoiled or lose its natural or wild feel, while several felt that previous County Council management had led to the spread of silver birch

Question B8: Comments regarding grazing and stock options There were various comments and concerns (total of 35 comments) regarding grazing and stock options being considered. These are categorised as follows (number of comments in parentheses):

 Concerns regarding compatibility of livestock and dogs (9)  Concern that dogs would have to be kept on leads (4)  Concerns regarding safety for people (esp. children) (4)  Little enthusiasm for fencing (4)  Suggestion that livestock number/density should be limited and/or closely monitored (3)  Concerns regarding animal rustling, particularly sheep, goats or ponies (2)  Comment that ponies/horses already graze the Common (2)  Comment on cost-effectiveness of management and maintenance of funding (2)  Concern for wild deer population (1)  Concern of security of adjoining property from livestock (1)  Concern regarding livestock faeces (1)  Other (4)

Comments reflected a wide range of feelings with regard to livestock on Shortheath Common. The greatest number of concerns was with regard to livestock and dogs, particularly whether dogs would subsequently have to be kept on leads. Several respondents mentioned safety of people from free-roaming livestock with some perceiving large animals, such as cattle or ponies, as threatening. Conversely, there were some concerns for the welfare and safety of the animals, especially from rustling. A few expressed reservations about fencing the Common while a couple of respondents also had concerns regarding the cost- effectiveness and maintenance of livestock management.

Question B9: Comments regarding grazing stock containment There were various concerns (total of 25 comments) regarding stock containment. These are categorised as follows (number of comments in parentheses):

 Would not like to see fencing (4) o Would ruin the Common; reduce access and ruin vista/open aspect (4) o Fencing too expensive/uneconomical (2)  Support for fencing (4) o Small fenced areas less restrictive to visitors (1) o Large enclosures would allow normal roaming behaviour of livestock (1) o Perimeter fencing would maintain openness (1) o Fencing would discourage dumping (1)  Support for cattle grids (2) o But must provide access for horses, pedestrians and bicycles and to property (2)

32

 Access: o Concerns over access (caused by fencing or cattle grids) (4) o Concern of fencing upon deer movements (2)  Would also like to see speed restrictions (e.g. 30mph) (1)  Concern regarding intrusion of livestock into gardens/support for tethered animals (1)  Other comments/statements (8)

There was some support for and against grazing stock containment but also a variety of concerns with respect to the effect fences would have on access for people or wildlife. Several respondents expressed concern over general access issues caused by fencing or cattle grids while others were concerned about how fencing would impact upon the open feel of the Common. A few respondents reiterated support for a particular stock containment option highlighting their reason for doing so.

33

Appendix 2

Shortheath Common: Questionnaire on Future Management

This survey is being carried out by Hampshire County Council to help us make decisions on future management of the Common for people and wildlife. You may find it helpful to read the leaflet and background paper about the Common before filling in this questionnaire. These can be found at www.hants.gov.uk/shortheath-common, or hard copies can be obtained by calling 01929 552444. Details of where to send this questionnaire are at the end.

A About you

A1 For what purpose do you visit the Common? (please tick all that apply)

1 Walking 4 Horse riding 7 Nature study 2 Dog walking 5 Fishing 8 Jogging 3 Cycling 6 Quiet relaxation 9 Picnic

10 Other (please give details)

A2 How often do you visit the Common? (please tick one box only)

1 Daily 2 Weekly 3 Monthly 4 Less often

A3 How do you usually travel to the Common? (please tick one box only)

1 Car/van 3 Cycle 5 On horse back 2 Horse box/lorry 4 On foot 6 Public transport

A4 Do you belong to any wildlife conservation or amenity organisation? If so, which one(s)?

A5 Where do you come from? (please give postcode) (This information will be used only for this survey)

A6 Do you visit other public open spaces locally? If so which are these?

B Your views

B1 Do you visit the Common because it offers: (please tick one or more)

1 Open views 5 Wildlife 9 Access from your front door 2 Peace & quiet 6 Long walks 10 Good for dogs 3 A wild place 7 Circular walks 11 Meeting others 4 Scenery/landscape 8 Easy access on foot 12 Easy access by car

34

13 Other (please specify):

B2 On the Common, do any of the following concern you? (please tick all that apply)

1 Too crowded 5 Professional dog walkers 9 Disturbance to wildlife 2 Too quiet 6 Uncontrolled dogs 10 Arson and wildfires 3 Too noisy 7 Dog mess 11 Car parking on common outside car park 4 Path surfaces 8 Vehicle track surfaces 12 Cars using tracks on common as shortcuts

For walkers: 13 Meeting vehicles/cyclists on paths For riders: 14 Meeting walkers/joggers/cyclists on bridleways (mark box with all or any of W, J, or C)

15 Other (please specify):

B3 Do you have concerns about dumped or stored garden waste, materials, vehicles, machinery etc. on the Common, or adjacent households using the common as an extension of their garden (Please tick yes or no) 1 Yes 2 No

3 Do you have any other comments?

B4 Do you think the current management of the Common for visitors is: (Tick one box only)

1 About right 2 Needs changing 3 No views

What changes would you like to see, if any?

B5 Do you think the current management of the Common for wildlife is: (Tick one box only)

1 About right 2 Needs changing 3 No views

What changes would you like to see, if any?

B6 Tree and scrub management will be necessary to retain the open heathland. Do you think the current balance of open heath and woodland is: (please tick)

1 About right 2 Too much woodland 3 Not enough woodland

B7 Inputs of nitrogen from the atmosphere help to change the heathland to grassland, and to encourage coarse grasses, bracken and brambles, which can affect rare heathland wildlife. To remedy this, management is needed. Do you have concerns over any of the following? Please note that several options may be needed to keep the Common in good condition (please tick one in each row)

35

Management 1 Like to see 2 Not like to see 3 Don’t know 1 Controlled burning 2 Grazing 3 Mowing 4 Turf cutting

If you have comments, what are they?

B8 If grazing were to be considered, we would need to look at stock types. How do you feel about grazing on Shortheath Common by the following (please tick one in each row):

Type of stock 1 Like to see 2 Not like to see 3 Don’t know 1Sheep 2 Cattle 3 Ponies 4 Goats 5 A combination of the above If you have comments, what are they?

B9 If grazing was introduced it would be necessary to control and contain the animals. Please let us know your views on the following further possibilities (given that full public access would be maintained across the whole of the Common at all times).

1 Like to see 2 Not like to see 3 Don’t know 1 Several small fenced enclosures 2 Fewer large fenced enclosures 3 Fencing the perimeter of the Common, including sides of the road between Oakhanger and the B3004 where it crosses the Common (all access points maintained) 4 Fencing the perimeter of the Common but not the roadsides, with cattle grids on the road across the Common (all access points maintained) If you have comments, what are they?

B10 Do you think information available at the pond car park for users of the Common is…? (please tick one)

1 Enough 2 Not enough 3 Too much If ‘not enough’, what additional information would you like?

36

B11 Would you be interested in taking part in management or leading other activities on the Common (please tick all that apply):

1 Work parties 3 Friends Group 5 Events 2 Guided walks 4 Education groups 6 Other

If you would like to be kept informed of the results of this consultation then please put your contact details here

B12 Would you like the contact details above to be used to contact you about events, activities or volunteering opportunities on Shortheath Common? 1 Yes 2 No

The questionnaire and any further enquiries should be sent by post to Jim White, Footprint Ecology, Forest Office, Cold Harbour, Wareham, BH20 7PA

37