Epping Forest & Commons Committee

Public Document Pack

Date: MONDAY, 10 SEPTEMBER 2012 Time: 3.30 pm Venue: COMMITTEE ROOM - 2ND FLOOR WEST WING, GUILDHALL

Members: Alderman Gordon Haines (Chairman) Barbara Newman (Deputy Chairman) George Abrahams Deputy John Barker Deputy Stella Currie Alderman John Garbutt Deputy Stanley Ginsburg Gregory Lawrence Deputy Catherine McGuinness Virginia Rounding Alderman Robert Hall (Ex-Officio Member) Dr Peter Hardwick (Ex-Officio Member)

For consideration of Business Relating to Epping Forest Only

Verderer Peter Adams Verderer Michael Chapman Verderer Richard Morris Verderer Dr. Joanna Thomas

Enquiries: Edward Foale tel. no.: 020 7332 1426 [email protected]

Chris Duffield Town Clerk and Chief Executive AGENDA

Part 1 - Public Agenda

1. APOLOGIES

2. DECLAR ATIONS BY MEMBERS OF ANY PERSONAL AND PRE JUDICIAL INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THIS AGENDA

3. MINUTES To agree the public minutes and summary of the meeting held on 9 July 2012 (copy attached). For Decision (Pages 1 - 10)

4. RISK MANAGEMENT – LOCAL RISK REGISTERS Report of the Director of Open Spaces (copy attached). For Information (Pages 11 - 20) Burnham Beeches & Stoke Common

5. SUPERINTENDENT'S UPD ATE The Superintendent of Burnham Beeches & Stoke Common to be heard.

For Information

6. BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON TRUSTEE 'S ANNUAL REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2012 Report of the Chamberlain (copy attached). For Information (Pages 21 - 46)

7. USE OF SECONDARY AUT HORITY POWERS TO INT RODUCE DOG CONTROL ORDERS AT BURNHAM BEECHES Report of the Superintendent of Burnham Beeches (copy attached). For Decision (Pages 47 – 56) Epping Forest

8. SUP ERINTENDENT'S UPDATE The Superintendent of Epping Forest to be heard. For Information

9. EPPING FOREST TRUSTE E'S ANNUAL REPORT AN D FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2012 Report of the Chamberlain (copy attached). For Information (Pages 57 - 86)

10. CONSULTATION BY EPPI NG FOREST DISTRICT C OUNCIL ON THE INTRODUCTION OF THREE DOG CONTROL ORDERS ON PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, CURRENTLY INCLUDING EPPING FOREST LAND Report of the Superintendent of Epping Forest (copy attached).

For Decision (Pages 87 - 102)

11. GRANT OF LICENCE TO LONDON BOROUGH OF NE WHAM FOR A PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY Report of the Superintendent of Epping Forest (copy attached). For Decision (Pages 103 - 112)

12. EPPING FOREST WOODLA ND PLANTING APPEAL Report of the Superintendent of Epping Forest (copy attached). For Decision (Pages 113 - 118)

13. ENGLISH WOODLAND GRA NT SCHEME APPLICATIO N FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DEER AND WOODLANDS IN THE EPPING FOREST BUFFER LAND ESTATE Report of the Superintendent of Epping Forest (copy attached). For Decision (Pages 119 - 188)

14. THE CURRENT PURPOSE AND MANAGEMENT OF TH E EPPING FOREST DEER SANCTUARY, THEYDON BOIS Report of the Superintendent of Epping Forest (copy attached). For Information (Pages 189 - 200) City Commons

15. SUPERINTENDENT'S UPD ATE The Superintendent of the City Commons to be heard.

16. CITY COMMONS TRUSTEE 'S ANNUAL REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2012 Report of the Chamberlain (copy attached). For Information (Pages 201 - 244)

17. ASHTEAD COMMON CONSU LTATIVE COMMITTEE To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 2 July 2012 (copy attached).

For Information (Pages 245 - 248)

18. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE

19. ANY OTHER BUSINESS T HAT THE CHAIRMAN CON SIDERS URGENT

Part 2 - Non -Public Agenda

20. EXCLUSION OF THE PUB LIC MOTION: That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act as follows:-

Item No. Paragraphs in Schedule 12A 21 1 & 3 22 3 23-24 -

21. NON -PUBLIC MINUTES To agree the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 9 July 2012 (copy attached).

For Decision (Pages 249 - 250) Epping Forest

22. WAYLEAVE CESSATION - 2 ROSE COTTAGES, HON EY LANE, WALTHAM ABBEY Report of the Superintendent of Epping Forest (copy attached). For Decision (Pages 251 - 260)

23. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE

24. ANY OTHER BUSINESS T HAT THE CHAIRMAN CON SIDERS URGENT AND WHICH THE COMMITTEE AGREE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED

Agenda Item 3

EPPING FOREST & COMMONS COMMITTEE Monday, 9 July 2012

Minutes of the meeting of the Epping Forest & Commons Committee held at Committee Room - 2nd Floor West Wing, Guildhall on Monday, 9 July 2012 at 11.30 am

Present

Members: Alderman Gordon Haines (Chairman) Barbara Newman (Deputy Chairman) George Abrahams Deputy John Barker Deputy Stella Currie Alderman John Garbutt Deputy Stanley Ginsburg Gregory Lawrence Deputy Catherine McGuinness Verderer Peter Adams Verderer Michael Chapman Verderer Richard Morris Verderer Dr. Joanna Thomas

Officers: Esther Sumner - Policy Officer, Town Clerk's Department Alison Elam - Group Accountant, Chamberlain's Department Roger Adams - City Surveyor's Department Sue Ireland - Director of Open Spaces Paul Thomson - Superintendent, Epping Forest Andy Barnard - Superintendent, Burnham Beeches & Stoke Common Bob Warnock - Superintendent, City Commons Alison Tapply - Community Liaison Officer

1. APOLOGIES Apologies were received from Virginia Rounding, Alderman Robert Hall and Dr. Peter Hardwick.

2. MINUTES The public minutes and summary of the meeting held on 14 May 2012 were approved, subject to the following amendments:

Present Members: John Barker

Page 1

Connaught Water (item 6) In response to a Member’s query, the Superintendent of Epping Forest advised that the landscape contractor, UPM Tilhill, would return to the site in September after the School Holidays to undertake further ‘snagging’ works. Any safety related planting would be undertaken later in November/December 2012 to maximise the opportunities for plant establishment.

2012/13 Committee Appointment (item 7) Epping Forest Management Plan Steering Group to Comprise: Chairman for the time being Deputy Chairman for the time being Deputy Stella Currie Deputy Catherine McGuinness The Four Verderers Mr Gordon Wyatt (or other Natural England nominated representative) The Superintendent of Epping Forest

MATTERS ARISING Several Members expressed dismay at a recent article that had appeared in a local newspaper that made inaccurate statements. Members agreed that the Chairman would issue a letter correcting the claims made in the article.

The Chairman put to the Committee for its consideration that Members and officers could choose to remain seated at meetings of the Committee.

RESOLVED: That Members and officers can choose to remain seated at meetings of the Committee until further notice.

3. DECLARATIONS BY MEMBERS OF ANY PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THIS AGENDA Deputy Catherine McGuinness and Verderer Richard Morris declared a personal interest in respect of the Epping Forest Centenary Trust for which they both volunteered (this was a standing declaration).

4. REVIEW OF THE GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS IMPLEMENTED IN 2011 The Committee received a report of the Town Clerk, prepared on behalf of the Governance Review Working Party, which sought comments from the Committee on the governance arrangements introduced in 2011 and the impact that they may have had on the operation of the Committee.

A Member expressed that they believed it was unnecessary for one of the eight Committee Members appointed by the Court of Common Council to have less than five years’ service on the Court at the time of appointment. Discussion ensued and the Committee decided to maintain this clause for the benefit of stimulating newer Common Council Members’ interests in the Committee.

Page 2 A Member, also a Verderer, advised that they believed that the Epping Forest Act 1878 gave Verderers equal rights to Common Council Members regardless of which of the assets under the Committee’s management was under discussion. They believed that the wording “for the consideration of business relating to Epping Forest only” listed in the Committee’s terms of reference contravened the Epping Forest Act 1878. The Town Clerk advised that recent legal advice had indicated that the point of continuity from the Epping Forest Committee referenced in the Act related only to the Committee’s function in managing Epping Forest and not to the management of the City Commons and Burnham Beaches Estates, which had been added to the Committee’s portfolio a reasonable time after the Act.

A Member advised that there was a discrepancy between what the membership outlined within the report and that outlined within the terms of reference. The report advised that there were ten Members appointed by the Court of Common Council, whereas the terms of reference advised that there were eight Members appointed by the Court of Common Council and two Aldermen nominated by the Court of Aldermen. Members agreed to refer this matter to the Governance Review Working Party for consideration.

RESOLVED : that the Committee submit the discussion captured above for consideration by the Governance Review Working Party.

5. ELECTION OF VERDERERS - DATES OF NOMINATION AND POLLS The Committee received a report of the Town Clerk, which followed on from the report submitted to the previous Committee meeting regarding the election of Verderers, which had to take place no later than 20 March 2013.

In response to a Member’s query, the Town Clerk clarified that the Epping Forest & Commons Committee had the option of using one proxy vote in each parish and the Port Health & Environmental Services Committee had the same option, which meant that overall the City could have two separate votes in the Verderers election. Discussion ensued and Members decided that the Committee would not use the proxy vote as it presented a conflict of interest, as the Committee would be voting for one of its own Members.

In response to a Member’s query, the Town Clerk clarified that the election rules and procedures were laid out in the Epping Forest Act 1878, which predated election reforms and was not affected by subsequent reform to national and local elections. The Act consequently did not allow for a secret ballot. The Director advised that it would not be possible to amend this without consulting parliament.

RESOLVED : that, i) the Committee’s proxy vote in the election of Verderers 2013 not be utilised. ii) two special meetings of the Committee to settle the Register of Commoners be held on 25th and 29th January 2013.

Page 3 iii) the nomination meetings be held on 25th February 2013 and, if polls be demanded, they be held on 27th February in the southern parishes and 28th February 2013 in the northern parishes.

6. REVENUE OUTTURN 2011/12 - EPPING FOREST AND COMMONS The Committee received a joint report of the Chamberlain and the Director of Open Spaces. The report compared the revenue outturn for the services overseen by the Committee in 2011/12 with the final agreed budget for the year. Members noted that in total there was a better than budget position of £686,000 for the services overseen by the Committee compared with the final agreed budget for the year.

RECEIVED

7. DECISIONS TAKEN UNDER URGENCY POWERS The Committee received a report of the Town Clerk that provided details of action taken under urgency procedures by the Town Clerk in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Committee, in accordance with Standing Order No. 41(a).

The following decision was noted:

Consultation on Implementation of Amendments to the Reservoirs Act 1975

RECEIVED

8. CONTROL OF DOGS The Committee received a report of the Director of Open Spaces relative to Dog Control Orders. The report informed the Committee of the City’s recent acquisition of a Designation Order, which enabled the City to make and enforce Dog Control Orders, as a Secondary Authority outside the Square Mile, which came into force on 31 May 2012.

The Director informed the Committee of new proposals by Government that could see Dog Control Orders replaced by a Community Protection Order, which would address a wider range of persistent, place-based anti-social behaviour.

RESOLVED : that Members, i) note the report and the approach to trialling Dog Control Orders and; ii) approve that engagement with the Government on maintaining Secondary Authority status within the proposed new regime for anti- social behaviour can proceed.

City Commons

9. SUPERINTENDENT'S UPDATE The Superintendent of the City Commons provided a verbal update regarding the following:

Page 4 • Leavers One Ranger had recently left and one had commenced maternity leave. • Wildflower Recognition Course Staff and volunteers had completed a course on wildflower recognition to assist with the programme of site condition assessments. • Farm Animals The cattle had been put to the bull and a further six steeds had been purchased to bolster the grazing on Ashtead Common. • Events Six community led events had been held across the Commons over the last two months, which had been very successful. • Work Programme Hay making and grass cutting was continuing although severely affected by the weather. Ragwort pulling was currently underway, with which scouts and horse riders were assisting. • Tendering Contracts for the veteran tree management at Ashtead Common had been put out to tender. • Oak Processionary Moth – the Superintendent had been in contact with the Forest Commission regarding measures to counter the risk the moth presented. Staff would go on additional training in the near future.

RECEIVED

Burnham Beeches

10. SUPERINTENDENT'S UPDATE The Superintendent of Burnham Beeches provided a verbal update regarding the following: • Pollard Creation Pollard creation works were underway, as well as maintaining those planted fifteen years ago. • Work Experience Several 15/16 year olds recently had work experience placements at the estate office, which proved very successful. • Bench Repairs Several benches would be repaired in the near future. Volunteers were actively involved. • Bracken Bashing Bracken bashing would be undertaken over the summer. • Dog Control A responsible dog ownership campaign had been launched ahead of the proposed pilot of the City’s recently acquired dog control orders. • Play Burnham Beeches had recently staged a production of “Down the Rabbit Hole,” a parody of Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass,” which had been well received.

RECEIVED

11. GRAZING UPDATE The Superintendent of Burnham Beeches was heard relative to grazing, Members noted the following: • Transport for Buckinghamshire had recently been informed of the proposed measures. • A solicitor had recently been employed to finalise any outstanding liability issues and address the concerns of Buckinghamshire Council. • A group would be taken to view the invisible fencing in action on 10 July 2012.

RECEIVED

Page 5 12. BURNHAM BEECHES CONSULTATION GROUP MINUTES 3 MAY 2012 The minutes from the meeting of the Burnham Beeches Consultation Group held on 3 May 2012 were received.

13. URBAN DEVELOPMENT & BURNHAM BEECHES SAC The Committee received a report of the Superintendent of Burnham Beeches relative to Urban Development in the Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The report compared Burnham Beeches with other sites of European Importance where restrictions in planning development had already been put in place or are underway. The report concluded that, due to the high number of visitors originating from the residential areas close to the Beeches, the local planning authority should devise and implement suitable measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of local development via their forthcoming Development Management Development Plan Document.

In response to a Member’s comment, the Superintendent corrected the report to state that there were approximately 215,000 dog visits annually, rather than 215,000 dogs visiting annually as many would be repeat visits.

RECEIVED

Epping Forest

14. SUPERINTENDENT'S UPDATE The Superintendent of Epping Forest provided a verbal update regarding the following: • Starters and Leavers – The Superintendent updated the Committee regarding staff changes, including the post of Business Manager (Maternity Cover); Conservation Arborist; Forest Centres Officer and Technical Officer. A Forest Keeper had retired and the Assistant Ecologist had resigned to pursue PhD studies. • Flytipping – incidents for the months of May and June totalled 178 incidents, which exceeded last years monthly total. Overall there were 464 incidents of flytipping for the January to June period which is behind the 2011 total by 59 incidents or 11%. • Ear tagging Fallow Deer fawns Working with the Deer Initiative two fawns had been ear tagged for visual monitoring purposes. • Visit by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) Epping Forest hosted a visit by SNH officers studying deer management issues at major forests in the south and east of England. • Diamond Jubilee Events The Forest also hosted a number of Jubilee events, including Bell Common with 150 local residents were in attendance. • Horse Riders Prosecuted The Forest Keepers had undertaken their first successful prosecutions at Chelmsford Magistrates Court for failure to purchase and failure to display horse licences. The Magistrates awarded fines of £50 and £240 per costs for each offence. • Bat Training Two staff had successfully completed training for the mist netting and radio tracking of bats.

Page 6 • New Cattle Twelve new Longhorn heifers have been purchased to bring the herd back towards the working herd figure of 50. Four heifers are in calf. • Lousewort mapping The wet heath population of Lousewort had been remapped in 2012 to chart their response to grazing and mowing which shows continued expansion. • Weed monitoring programme All three keeper teams had been involved in the monitoring of Japanese Knotweed populations. A number of previously treated sites have shown regrowth. Two new Giant Hogweed sites have also been identified in the south of the Forest. • Ragwort Policy A new policy regarding the treatment of Ragwort including a survey timetable and control methodology was being trialled by staff during the summer.

• Essex Food and Farming Day – 24 May 2012 Two staff members and two volunteers staffed a stand at this important forum speaking to over 500 students across the day. • Half-Term Family Learning Events 388 visitors participated in three events held during half-term week based around royalty and the Diamond Jubilee. • Discovering Epping Forest (DEF) – Champions Workshop – 29 June 2012 The new classroom facilities at Chingford hosted an important event to share the share teaching opportunities at Epping Forest and help build the DEF legacy for the future. • Illyria – Henry V – 21 June 2012 Following several sell-out events during 2011, the latest theatre event at Wanstead Park was affected by poor weather with only 56 tickets sold. • Muster Briefing and Deployment Centre, Wanstead Flats The Metropolitan Police took possession of the eight-acre site on 23 June 2012 and began construction immediately. Two weeks earlier 60 people had attended a demonstration ‘People’s Picnic’ on the area allocated to the site. • Bushwood, Wanstead Flats Dispersal Order The Metropolitan Police had issued a Dispersal Order on the Bushwood area of Wanstead Flats following a series of aggravated muggings, effective from 26 June 2012. • Hollow Ponds Wharf F M Conways had been commissioned to undertake £60,000 of wharfage repair works at Hollow Ponds. • Rainfall Rainfall at Epping Forest had been high with 151% above average rainfall for May 2012 and 228% above average rainfall for June 2012. • Highams Park Lake Telemetry was under installation. • Hale End and Highams Park Forum The Superintendent and Assistant Director (City Surveyor) presented to 60 residents with regard to proposals for the Highams Park dam. • Starstreak Surface-to-Air-Missile (SAM) Battery – Fred Wigg Tower, Wanstead Flats A hearing was scheduled for 2 July 2012 following an application by Council residents to the High Court for an injunction over the siting of the SAM battery atop the building. • Warlies Park The City completed the freehold acquisition of 29.74 acres of land on the 6th July 2012.

Page 7 • ‘The View’ Visitor Centre Practical completion had been completed on 11 May 2012. Installation of the exhibits was completed on Friday 6 July. Staff were working hard to complete all the fit-out procedures behind the scenes in preparation for launch on 12 July. Final landscaping at the gateway site had also been completed. • Volunteers 202 volunteers accrued 1382 hours of labour during April- May, including helping with landscape works at the new visitor hub car parks. • Outreach Events The Community Liaison Officer had taken advantage of the sunshine to deliver five outreach events. • Wanstead Nature Club The Community Liaison Officer and Forest Keepers were supporting a local community group Wren Conservation in launching a new monthly Nature Club on Wanstead Flats. • Volunteer Led Walks The summer would see a range of events designed and delivered by Epping Forest Volunteers.

RECEIVED

15. DEER MANAGEMENT ON THE BUFFER LANDS The Committee received a report of the Superintendent of Epping Forest that updated Members on Deer Management on the Buffer Lands.

The report had been compiled in response to a request by the Committee for an annual report on progress with the implementation of the 1996 Deer Management Strategy in the Buffer Land estates surrounding Epping Forest.

In response to a Member’s query, the Superintendent advised that stalkers were licensed to cull deer in return for ownership of the carcass. It had not been practical to charge stalkers to shoot deer as this did not reflect the common practice in the area. It was further noted that the consistently low market price paid for venison limited the viability of financing stalking. The Superintendent also advised that evidence from the counts suggested that there were often too many male deer shot as trophy carcasses across the South West Essex area, which meant there were a disproportionately high number of breeding does in the local population.

RECEIVED

16. EPPING FOREST ANNUAL WORK PROGRAMME 2012 The Committee received a report of the Superintendent of Epping Forest relative to the Epping Forest Annual Work Programme. Members noted that the Annual Work programme for Epping Forest had been drawn from the Epping Forest Management Plan, which was approved by the Committee in 2004 and covered the period April 2012 to March 2013 inclusive.

A Member expressed concern that the annual work programme could not be considered in a long term context due the fact that the management plan had not yet been written. The Superintendent recognised the Member’s concern and advised that the Management Plan was currently being written and would

Page 8 be presented to the Committee when it had been fully developed in order to encompass an efficient long term commitment and vision.

RESOLVED : That, subject to additional reservations expressed by Members, the Annual Work Programme as set out in detail in Appendix 1 of the report be approved.

EXTENSION OF THE MEETING At this point, the time limit for Committee meetings as set out in Standing Order No 40 had been reached, but there being more than a two-thirds majority of the Committee present who voted in favour of an extension, the Committee agreed to continue the meeting.

17. VISITOR SURVEY The Committee received a report of the Superintendent of Epping Forest relative to an ongoing visitor survey. The second year of the Epping Forest Visitor Survey was conducted during 2011 and built upon the survey data gathered during 2010, helping to provide a more accurate picture of the visitor profile for Epping Forest. It was estimated that the total number of visits (rather than visitors) to Epping Forest in 2011 was 4.3 million.

RECEIVED

18. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE There were no questions.

19. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT There was no urgent business.

20. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC RESOLVED : That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act as follows:- Item No. Paragraphs in Schedule 12A 21-22 3 23 1 & 3 24-25 -

21. NON-PUBLIC MINUTES The non-public minutes of the meeting held on 14 May 2012 were approved.

22. FUTURE OF HIGH BEECH VISITOR CENTRE Members considered a report of the Superintendent of Epping Forest.

23. MOBILE REFRESHMENT FACILITIES - WANSTEAD FLATS Members considered a report of the Superintendent of Epping Forest.

Page 9 24. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE There were no questions.

25. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT AND WHICH THE COMMITTEE AGREE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED Members considered two urgent items.

The meeting ended at 1.55pm

Chairman

Contact Officer: Edward Foale tel. no.: 020 7332 1426 edward .foale @cityoflondon.gov.uk

Page 10 Agenda Item 4

Committee(s): Date(s): Item no. Epping Forest and Commons 10 September 2012 Committee Subject: Public Risk Management – Local Risk Registers Report of: For Information Director of Open Spaces

Summary

In his report to this Committee in May 2010 following a review of the City of London charities, the Comptroller and City Solicitor advised that it was important that this Committee has ownership of, and receive reports on, key policies including risk management. As part of the corporate risk management process and in line with the arrangements for the City of London’s charities, it has therefore been agreed that this Committee should receive an annual report on the main risks that affect Epping Forest, Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common and City Commons and they are attached to this report. The departmental Risk Register covering all the City Corporation’s Open Spaces was included in the Business Plan for 2012 – 2015, which was approved by the Open Spaces, City Gardens and West Ham Park Committee on 25 April 2012. The Director of Open Spaces is accountable for ensuring that significant risks in relation to the operational responsibilities of this Committee are escalated to Members on a timely basis. This report therefore provides Members with an opportunity to examine the main local risks for the Open Space charitable trusts that report to this Committee.

Recommendation • That the current local risk registers for Epping Forest, Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common and City Commons are agreed.

Main Report

Background

1. The City of London is committed to a programme of risk management as an element of its strategy to preserve the assets of the charities it manages, enhance productivity for service users and members of the public and protect its employees. Page 11 2. The City’s risk management framework has been developed in accordance with recognised best practice, including, and of particular relevance to the Open Spaces and Charity Commission guidance, to ensure that the role and responsibilities of Trustees in relation to risk management align with those of Members.

3. In order to embed sound practice, a corporate Risk Management Group ensures that risk management policies are applied, that there is an ongoing review of risk management activity and that appropriate advice and support is provided to Members and officers.

4. The City of London has approved a strategic risk register for all of its activities. This register helps to formalise existing processes and procedures and enables the City of London to further embed risk management throughout the organisation.

5. Epping Forest, Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common and the City Commons are charitable trusts, with the City of London acting as trustee and this Committee being responsible for their protection and management. In his report to this Committee in May 2010 following a review of the City of London charities, the Comptroller and City Solicitor advised that it was important that this Committee has ownership of, and receive reports on, key policies including risk management.

Current Position

6. The current Open Spaces Department Risk Register was included in the Business Plan for 2012 – 2015, which was approved by the Open Spaces, City Gardens and West Ham Park Committee on 25 April 2012.

7. A report from the Chamberlain to this Committee at the meeting on 14 May 2012 set out the key requirements of the Risk Management Handbook, particularly those in relation to the role and purpose of Service Committees or their designated Sub-Committees. Departments are required to undertake regular systematic review of their key operational risks, updating their departmental Risk Register accordingly.

8. In accordance with the Risk Management Handbook, the Open Spaces Department considers significant risks identified across all its sites. Routine review and monitoring of departmental risk has been aligned with the business performance review and, as such, will now form part of the quarterly business planning update to Open Spaces, City Gardens and West Ham Park Committee.

9. While your Committee does not routinely receive the overall departmental risk register, the Director of Open Spaces is, as described in this report, accountable for ensuring that significant risks in relation to Page 12 operational responsibilities of the Committee are escalated to Members on a timely basis.

10. Key risk registers have therefore been prepared for Epping Forest, Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common and City Commons which identify the potential impact of key risks and the measures which are in place to mitigate such risks. These registers are attached as appendices to this report.

11. This is the first annual report on the main risks that affect these charitable trusts and, during the year, any further risk management updates from the Superintendents will be included in their regular verbal update reports to this Committee.

Corporate & Strategic Implications

12. Risk management is a fundamental part of the business planning process and is therefore highlighted when the plan is updated. The key financial, property and other risks have been considered when compiling the registers for the three sites, together with an indication of the mitigating actions/controls that are in place. Conclusion 13. In accordance with the City’s risk management framework and the administration of the City of London’s charities, it has been agreed that this Committee should be updated annually about the key risks faced by your sites. Members are asked to note that appropriate actions are being taken to manage and mitigate those risks effectively in a timely manner.

Background Papers

Report of the Comptroller and City Solicitor on the Review of City of London Charities to the Epping Forest and Commons Committee – 10 May 2010

Contact: Denis Whelton | [email protected] | ext.3517

Page 13 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 14 City Commons Risk Register 2012-13

Risk Likelihood Impact Risk Owner/ (previous (previous Status No. Risk Details Lead Officer Existing Controls assessment) assessment Further Action Threat of death or Superintendent Departmental procedures Action outcomes serious injury resulting followed, including H&S audit from annual audit. in prosecution and and Top X health & safety negative publicity if risks. Adoption of new Keep Top X procedures fail departmental risk updated. 1 assessment framework. Possible Moderate 13 Recently upgraded procurement procedures and contractor selection and supervision arrangements. Extreme weather Superintendent Local Habitat Fire Keep local Plans creating conditions that Management Plan in place. under review. increase the potential for fire and tree damage City Commons Business 2 Likely Moderate 16 Page 15 Continuity Plan

Tree safety and veteran tree management procedures Reduction in grant Superintendent Management plans adjusted Development of income to ensure Environmental new monitoring Stewardship indicators and procedures to Single Payment Scheme ensure compliance. requirements are received 3 Possible Moderate 13 Development of Potential Common Grazing Business Agricultural Policy reforms Plan. considered as part of Grazing Business Plan process City Commons Risk Register 2012-13

Outside factors – Superintendent City Commons Business Keep Business pandemic/ transport Continuity Plan Possible Moderate Continuity Plan strikes/ plant diseases/ under review. 4 animal diseases 13

Major incident (indirect Superintendent City Commons Business Keep Business and direct, e.g. re- Continuity Plan Possible Moderate Continuity Plan deployment of buildings/ under review. resources) 5 13 Page 16

Risk Likelihood Impact Burnham Beeches - Risk Owner/ (previous (previous Status No. Risk Details Lead Officer Existing Controls assessment) assessment Further Action Extreme weather event Superintendent of Storm closure policy and Annual reviews of Burnham Action Plan. Policy and Beeches and Fire Policy and Action Plan. Procedures. 1 Stoke Common Likely Moderate 16 Maintain adequate staff training. Maintain links with emergency services Service delivery affected Superintendent of Departmental Pandemic Continue to develop by outside influences Burnham Plan. Multi-functional staff vehicle fleet to be e.g. fuel strike, Beeches and who can cover each other’s less reliant on fossil 2 pandemic or similar Stoke Common roles. Mix of vehicles allows Possible Moderate 13 fuel. choice of motive power and fuel.

Unavoidable reduction Superintendent of Increase income generation Develop alternative Page 17 in income, i.e. potential Burnham to meet budget reductions. /additional income losses due to expiry of Beeches and generating grants (HLS, SPS) and Stoke Common initiatives including 3 Likely Moderate further reductions in 16 changes to car park City’s Cash support. charge protocols. Potential reputational harm. Encroaching Superintendent of Monitor all planning Use of Habitats development Burnham applications. Special Area Directive and Beeches and of Conservation protection environmental Stoke Common set out in Core Strategy monitoring to further 4 Likely Moderate Policy 9 (South Bucks 16 influence local District Council). Development Planning Documents. Impact on landscape of Superintendent of Monitor DEFRA web sites. diseases of animals and Burnham Regular site inspections by Update all trees with the potential Beeches and trained staff. Contact with procedures to alter character and Stoke Common Forestry Commission and according to all eradicate species DEFRA as required. advice provided by 5 Likely Moderate 16 relevant agencies. Bio-security procedures for contractors and similar Upgrade bio- security if required

Page 18

Risk Likelihood Impact Epping Forest - Risk Owner/ (previous (previous Status No. Risk Details Lead Officer Existing Controls assessment) assessment Further Action Constraints map to be expanded further. Buried and underground Conservation Constraints Map produced. 1 17 services Manager / Local policy service checks Unlikely Severe Business prior to work. Manager Dam strengthening, arranged by City Surveyor. 2 Telemetry monitoring. Possible Catastrophic 22 Large raised reservoirs City Surveyor Emergency Plan.

Lifting Operations and Lifting Train MEWPs operators

Page 19 Equipment Regulations in ladder inspections. (LOLER) inspections in place. Achieve trained ladder 3 Falls from height Conservation New Mobile Elevating Work Unlikely Severe 17 inspectors at each Platform (MEWP) purchased location across the Manager Forest.

Identification and appropriate Further training of disposal of waste including Forest Keepers and litter, fly tip and waste litter pickers on 4 Hazardous Waste Head Forest generated as part of working Likely Moderate 16 identification and procedures commonly carried Keeper handling required. out by Forest Keepers, litter pickers and grounds staff. Local procedures covering any Analysing incident transporting or supporting of a records to identify load (including the lifting, 5 Manual Handling Business Likely Minor 12 further improvements. Manager putting down, pushing, pulling, carrying or moving thereof) by hand or bodily force

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 20 Agenda Item 6

Committee(s): Date(s): Item no. Epping Forest and Commons 10 September 2012 Subject: Public Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common Trustee’s Annual report and Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 March 2012 Report of: For Information The Chamberlain

Summary

The Trustee’s Annual Report and Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 March 2012 for Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common are presented in the format required by the Charity Commission. Recommendations • It is recommended that the Trustees Annual Report and Financial Statements be noted.

Main Report

1. The Trustees Annual Report and Financial Statements, in the format that is required by the Charity Commission, are presented for information. The accounts have been signed on behalf of the Trust by the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Finance Committee and have been audited.

2. Following the review of the charities for which the City is responsible a report to your Committee on 10 th May 2010 detailed key reports that should be presented to your Committee in future. The Trustees Annual Report and Financial Statements was one of these reports. The review also recommended that Stoke Common be registered as a charity and it be amalgamated with the Burnham Beeches Charity. This took place on 12 September 2011 and the financial statements reflect the activities on Stoke Common from that date. Information from these statements will form the Annual return to the Charity Commission.

3. Much of the information contained within the Annual Report and Financial Statements has already been presented to your Committee via budget and outturn reports.

Contact: Alison Elam | [email protected] | 020 7332 1081

Page 21 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 22 1

BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BURNHAM BEECHES)

REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2012

Charity Number: 232987

Page 23 BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON Trustee’s Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2012

Contents Page

Trustee’s Annual Report 2-7

Independent Auditor’s Report 8-9

Statement of Financial Activities 10

Balance Sheet 11

Notes to the Financial Statements 12-22

PageA2- 1 24 BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON Trustee’s Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2012

1. Reference and Administration Details Charity Name: Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common

Registered Charity Number: 232987

Principal Address: Guildhall, London EC2P 2EJ

Trustee: The Mayor, Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London

Chief Executive: The Town Clerk of the City of London Corporation

Treasurer: The Chamberlain of London

Solicitor: The Comptroller and City Solicitor

Banker: Lloyds TSB Bank plc City Office, PO Box 72 Bailey Drive Gillingham, Kent ME8 OLS

Auditor: Deloitte LLP Chartered Accountants and Statutory Auditor 2 New Street Square London EC4A 3BZ

2. Structure, Governance and Management The Governing Document and constitution of the charity The governing document is the Corporation of London (Open Spaces) Act 1878. The charity is constituted as a charitable trust.

Trustee selection methods The Mayor, Commonalty and Citizens of London known as the City of London Corporation is the Trustee of Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common. Elected Aldermen and Members of the City of London Corporation are appointed to the Committee governing Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common by the Court of Common Council of the City of London Corporation.

Policies and procedures for the induction and training of trustee The City of London Corporation makes available to its Members seminars and briefings on various aspects of the City’s activities, including those concerning Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common, as it considers necessary to enable the Members to efficiently carry out their duties.

PageA2- 2 25 BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON Trustee’s Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2012

Organisational structure and decision making process The committee governing the charity’s activities is noted above. The committee is ultimately responsible to the Court of Common Council of the City of London. The decision making processes of the Court of Common Council are set out in the Standing Orders and Financial Regulations governing all the Court of Common Council’s activities.

The Standing Orders and Financial Regulations are available from the Town Clerk at the registered address.

Details of related parties and wider networks Details of any related party transactions are disclosed in note 14 of the Notes to the Financial Statements.

Risk identification The Trustee is committed to a programme of risk management as an element of its strategy to preserve the charity’s assets, enhance productivity for service users and members of the public and protect the employees.

In order to embed sound practice a Risk Management Group has been established in the City of London Corporation to ensure that risk management policies are applied, that there is an ongoing review of risk management activity and that appropriate advice and support is provided to Members and officers.

The City of London Corporation has approved a strategic risk register for all of its activities. This register helps to formalise existing processes and procedures and enables the City of London Corporation to further embed risk management throughout the organisation.

A key risk register has been prepared for this charity and has been reviewed by the committee acting on behalf of the Trustee. It identifies the potential impact of key risks and the measures which are in place to mitigate such risks.

3. Objectives and Activities for the Public Benefit The Trustee has due regard to the Charity Commission’s public benefit guidance when setting objectives and planning activities.

The Burnham Beeches charity was established under the Corporation of London (Open Spaces) Act 1878 which states that the purpose of the charity is the preservation of the Open Space known as Burnham Beeches, “the Beeches”, for the recreation and enjoyment of the public.

On 12 th September 2011 the assets of Stoke Common (unregistered) were transferred to Burnham Beeches (232987). After this date the Charity is called Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common.

The objects of the Charity are the preservation in perpetuity by the Corporation of London of the Open Spaces known as Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common, for the perpetual use thereof by the public for recreation and enjoyment.

PageA2- 3 26 BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON Trustee’s Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2012

Burnham Beeches is also a National Nature Reserve and a Special Area for Conservation; there are requirements under the Wildlife and Countryside Act and also a European obligation to manage the Beeches for the benefit of its wildlife.

Stoke Common contains the largest remnant of Buckinghamshire’s once extensive heathland, and is also designated as Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

This charity is operated as part of the City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash. The City of London Corporation is committed to fund the ongoing net operational costs of the charity in accordance with the purpose which is the preservation of the Open Space known as Burnham Beeches, “the Beeches”, for the recreation and enjoyment of the public.

4. Achievements and Performance Key targets for 2011/12 and review of achievement The key targets for 2011/12 together with their outcomes were: • Car park charging scheme . Review all car parking facilities and plan/deliver associated consultation/works necessary to implement car park charges at Burnham Beeches. Car parking charges have been introduced and income has been reviewed against the target levels set and is in line with the target. • Conservation Grazing Scheme. Carry out public consultation based on the Preliminary Design report. Commission detailed design and seek associated funding for delivery. Project Design has been rethought and a phased introduction is now proposed to a new design. Public consultation is ongoing. • Provide New Interpretive signs for Burnham Beeches – Phase 2. Seek new funding and deliver Phase two of this project. New signage has now been introduced. • Regeneration of ancient pollards. Implement projects arising from recommendations of the recent research report. Following the report the first projects will commence in 2012/13. • Pond Outflow improvements. Identify capital funding to deliver repairs/improvements. A design report has now been finalised including detailed costings. Funding will be sought in 2012/13 in order to implement the improvements. • Capital funding for Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common. Draw up capital works programmes and costs and apply for Higher Level Stewardship Scheme funding – completed. • Sustainability. Carry out the requirements of the Departmental and Local Improvement plans stemming from the Sustainability Audit System – completed. • Visitor count survey. Complete the detailed survey to determine accurate visitor numbers to Burnham Beeches – completed. • Wayleave records and procedures. Review local wayleave records and procedures and implement findings – completed. • Works programme – general . Deliver projects detailed in the Burnham Beeches Management Plan – completed.

PageA2- 4 27 BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON Trustee’s Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2012

Additional achievements during the year 2011/12 were:

• Heathland regeneration . Delivered projects detailed in the Stoke Common heathland regeneration plan. • Completion of the site’s Local Sustainability Improvement Plan. • Installation of 10kWh photovoltaic electricity production. • Green Flag Award - the site received a Green Flag award for its excellence in recreation and conservation management. • Green Heritage Award - the site received a Green Heritage award for its excellence in heritage management. • 58 Veteran Pollards restored – as part of our ongoing wood pasture restoration scheme. 50 young pollards were created. • Squirrel control programme continues and the programme is proving effective. • The Burnham Beeches volunteers programme goes from strength to strength with over 7,500 hours of volunteer input. • Use of site’s recent hydrology report to influence development planning decisions around Burnham Beeches. • 32 organised events were held on the site enjoyed by over 2000 visitors. • Merger of Stoke Common with the Burnham Beeches Charitable trust.

All of the above achievements enhanced the Open Space for the benefit of the public.

5. Financial Review Review of financial position Income of £365,659 (2010/11 £130,807) was received including grant income of £97,658 (2010/11 £79,411), donations of £24,842 (2010/11 £18,202), interest of £1,426 (2010/11 £nil), other reimbursements and contributions of £119,774, sales of £11,146 (2010/11 £327), fees and charges of £85,178 (2010/11 £1,597) and rental income of £25,635 (2010/11 £31,270). The contribution towards running costs of the charity amounted to £685,875 (2010/11 £794,379). This cost was met by the City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash. On 12 th September 2011 the assets and liabilities of Stoke Common were transferred to Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common. £109,872 was transferred being the balance of the lump sum from South Buckinghamshire District Council.

Reserves Policy The charity is wholly supported by the City of London Corporation which is committed to maintain and preserve Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common out of its City’s Cash Funds. These Funds are used to meet the deficit on running expenses on a year by year basis. Consequently, this charity has no free reserves and a reserves policy is therefore inappropriate.

Investment Policy The charity itself has no underlying supporting funds or investments and therefore there is no investment policy.

PageA2- 5 28 BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON Trustee’s Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2012

Going Concern The Trustee considers the Commons to be a going concern. Please see note 1(b) to the Financial Statements.

6. Plans for Future Periods The key targets for 2012/13 are to: • Wood fuel heating system for Estate office . Install wood fuel boiler system to reduce energy costs, carbon footprint and generate income from the Renewable Heat Incentive programme. • Conservation Grazing Scheme. Produce detailed project design (including livestock purchase and personnel issues). Carry out public consultation and seek funding for delivery. • Regeneration of ancient pollards. Continue programme of experimental projects arising from recommendations of the recent research report. • Heathland regeneration. Deliver projects detailed in the Stoke Common heathland regeneration plan for years 4-7. • Pond Outflow improvements . Identify capital funding to deliver repairs/improvements and deliver project. • Capital funding for Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common. Draw up capital works programmes and costs and apply for Higher Level Stewardship Scheme funding. • Sustainability. Carry out the requirements of the second Departmental and Local Improvement Plans stemming from the Sustainability Audit System. Carry out the Sustainability audit at both sites. • Team Development. Develop, implement and evaluate a programme of team learning opportunities to improve service delivery and enhance in-house knowledge base and experience. • Introduction of Dog Control Orders. Scope use of Dog Control orders at Burnham Beeches and Stoke common and produce a consultation, partnership and project delivery plan. • Works programme – general. Deliver projects detailed in the Burnham Beeches Management Plan for years 3-5.

7. The Financial Statements The financial statements consist of the following and include comparative figures for Burnham Beeches for the previous year:

• Statement of Financial Activities showing all resources available and all expenditure incurred and reconciling all changes in the funds of the charity. • Balance Sheet setting out the assets and liabilities of the charity. • Notes to the Financial Statements describing the accounting policies adopted and explaining information contained in the financial statements.

PageA2- 6 29 BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON Trustee’s Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2012

The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with statutory requirements and the Statement of Recommended Practice Accounting and Reporting by Charities (Revised 2005) .

8. Statement of Trustee’s Responsibilities The Trustee is responsible for preparing the Trustee’s Report and financial statements in accordance with applicable law and United Kingdom Accounting Standards (United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice). The law applicable to charities in England & Wales requires the Trustee to prepare financial statements for each financial year which give a true and fair of the state of affairs of the charity and of the incoming resources of the charity for the period. In preparing these financial statements the Trustee is required to:

• select suitable accounting policies and then apply them consistently; • observe the methods and principals in the Charities SORP; • make judgements that are estimates that are reasonable and prudent; • state whether applicable accounting standards have been followed; and • prepare the financial statements on the going concern basis unless it is inappropriate to presume that the charity will continue in business.

The Trustee is responsible for keeping proper accounting records that disclose with reasonable accuracy at any time the financial position of the charity and to ensure that the financial statements comply with the Charities Act 2011, the Charity (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2008 and the provisions of the charities’ governing documents. It is also responsible for safeguarding the assets of the charity and hence for taking reasonable steps for the prevention and detection of fraud and other irregularities.

9. Adopted and signed for and on behalf of the Trustee.

R.A.H. Chadwick Raymond Michael Catt Chairman of Finance Committee Deputy Chairman of Guildhall, London Finance Committee Guildhall, London

PageA2- 7 30 BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT TO THE TRUSTEE OF BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON CHARITY

We have audited the financial statements of Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common for the year ended 31 March 2012 which comprise the Statement of Financial Activities, the Balance Sheet and the related notes 1 to 14. The financial reporting framework that has been applied in their preparation is applicable law and United Kingdom Accounting Standards (United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice).

This report is made solely to the charity’s Trustee, as a body, in accordance with section 144 of the Charities Act 2011 and regulations made under section 154 of that Act. Our audit work has been undertaken so that we might state to the charity’s Trustee those matters we are required to state to them in an auditor’s report and for no other purpose. To the fullest extent permitted by law, we do not accept or assume responsibility to anyone other than the charity and the charity’s Trustee as a body, for our audit work, for this report, or for the opinions we have formed.

Respective responsibilities of Trustee and auditor As explained more fully in the Trustee’s Responsibilities Statement, the Trustee is responsible for the preparation of the financial statements which give a true and fair view.

We have been appointed as auditor under section 144 of the Charities Act 2011 and report in accordance with regulations made under section 154 of that Act. Our responsibility is to audit and express an opinion on the financial statements in accordance with applicable law and International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland). Those standards require us to comply with the Auditing Practices Board’s Ethical Standards for Auditors.

Scope of the audit of the financial statements An audit involves obtaining evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or error. This includes an assessment of: whether the accounting policies are appropriate to the charity’s circumstances and have been consistently applied and adequately disclosed; the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by the Trustee; and the overall presentation of the financial statements. In addition, we read all the financial and non-financial information in the annual report to identify material inconsistencies with the audited financial statements. If we become aware of any apparent material misstatements or inconsistencies we consider the implications for our report.

Opinion on financial statements In our opinion the financial statements: • give a true and fair view of the state of the charity’s affairs as at 31 March 2012, and of its incoming resources and application of resources, for the year then ended; • have been properly prepared in accordance with United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice; and • have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Charities Act 2011.

PageA2- 8 31 BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT TO THE TRUSTEE OF BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON CHARITY (CONTINUED)

Matters on which we are required to report by exception We have nothing to report in respect of the following matters where the Charities Act 2011 requires us to report to you if, in our opinion: • the information given in the Trustee’s Annual Report is inconsistent in any material respect with the financial statements; or • sufficient accounting records have not been kept; or • the financial statements are not in agreement with the accounting records and returns; or • we have not received all the information and explanations we require for our audit.

Deloitte LLP Chartered Accountants and Statutory Auditor London, UK 21 st August 2012 Deloitte LLP is eligible to act as an auditor in terms of section 1212 of the Companies Act 2006 and consequently to act as the auditor of the registered charity.

PageA2- 9 32

BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON Statement of Financial Activities for the year ended 31 March 2012 Unrestricted Funds General Designated 2011/12 2010/11 Notes Fund Fund £ £ £ £ Incoming Resources Incoming Resources from generated funds Voluntary Income 132,402 109,872 242,274 97,613 Investment Income 1,426 - 1,426 - Grant from City of London Corporation 685,875 - 685,875 794,379 Incoming Resources from Charitable activities 121,959 - 121,959 33,194 Total incoming resources 4 941,662 109,872 1,051,534 925,186

Resources Expended Charitable activities 873,913 18,148 892,061 889,607 Governance costs 66,323 - 66,323 53,727 Total resources expended 5 940,236 18,148 958,384 943,334

Net incoming/(outgoing) resources before transfers 1,426 91,724 93,150 (18,148) Transfer (to)/from designated funds (1,426) 1,426 - - Net incoming/(outgoing) resources for the financial year - 93,150 93,150 (18,148)

Reconciliation of funds Funds brought forward 12 - 748,082 748,082 766,230 Funds carried forward - 841,232 841,232 748,082

All operations are continuing.

PageA2- 10 33

BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON Balance Sheet as at 31 March 2012

Notes 2012 2011 £ £ Fixed Assets Tangible Fixed Assets 9 729,934 748,082

Current Assets Debtors 10 5,834 45,234 Cash at bank and in hand 157,177 23,877 163,011 69,111

Creditors: Amounts falling due within one year 11 (51,713) (69,111) Net Current Assets 111,298 -

Total Assets less Current Liabilities 841,232 748,082

The Funds of the Charity Unrestricted Income Fund Designated Fund 12 841,232 - Total Charity Funds 841,232 748,082

Approved and signed for and on behalf of the Trustee

The notes at pages 12 to 22 form part of these accounts.

______Chris Bilsland Chamberlain of London st 21 August 2012

PageA2- 11 34 BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

1. Accounting Policies The following accounting policies have been applied consistently in dealing with items which are considered material in relation to the charity’s financial statements.

(a) Basis of preparation The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the Charities Act 2011 and Statement of Recommended Practice Accounting and Reporting by Charities (Revised 2005) and under the historical cost accounting rules, and in accordance with applicable United Kingdom accounting standards.

(b) Going concern The governing documents place an obligation on the City of London Corporation to preserve the open space for the benefit of the public. The City of London Corporation is committed to fulfilling this obligation which is reflected through its proactive management of, and ongoing funding for, the services and activities required. The funding is provided from the City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash which annually receives considerable income from its managed funds and property investments. Each year a medium term financial forecast is prepared for City’s Cash. The latest forecast to the period 2015/16 anticipates that adequate funding will be available to enable the Trust to continue to fulfil its obligations. On this basis the Trustee considers the Trust to be a going concern for the foreseeable future.

Burnham Beeches comprises 219 hectares (540 acres) and Stoke Common covers an area of 80 hectares of land located in Buckinghamshire, to the West of London, together with associated buildings. The objectives of the charity are the preservation in perpetuity by the Corporation of London of the Open Spaces known as Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common, for the perpetual use thereof by the public for recreation and enjoyment. Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common are considered to be inalienable (i.e. may not be disposed of without specific statutory powers). The land and the original associated buildings are considered to be heritage assets. In respect of the original land and buildings, cost or valuation amounts are not included in these accounts as reliable cost information is not available and a significant cost would be involved in the reconstruction of past accounting records, or in the valuation, which would be onerous compared to the benefit to the users of these accounts.

PageA2-12 35 BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

Tangible Fixed Assets

Years Operational buildings 30 to 50 Landscaping/Conservation up to 50 Improvements and refurbishments to buildings up to 30 Equipment 5 to 15 Infrastructure 10 Heavy vehicles and plant 7 Computer systems 3 to 7 Cars and light vans 5

(d) Incoming resources Recognition of incoming resources All incoming resources are included in the Statement of Financial Activities gross without deduction of expenses in the financial year in which they are entitled to be received. Voluntary income Voluntary income comprises public donations and government grants. Volunteers No amounts are included in the Statement of Financial Activities for services donated by volunteers, as this cannot be quantified. Grants received Grants are included in the Statement of Financial Activities in the financial year in which they are entitled to be received.

Grant from City of London Corporation The City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash meets the deficit on running expenses of the charity and also provides grant funding for certain capital works and this income is recognised in the Statement of Financial Activities when it is due from the City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash.

Rental income Rental income is included in the Charity’s incoming resources for the year and amounts due but not received at the year end are included in debtors.

PageA2-13 36 BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

(e) Resources expended Allocation of costs between different activities The City of London Corporation charges staff costs to the charitable activity and governance costs on a time spent basis. Associated office accommodation is charged out proportionately to the square footage used. All other costs are charged directly to the charitable activity.

(f) Pension costs The City of London’s Pension Scheme is a funded defined benefits scheme. City of London Corporation staff are eligible for membership in the pension scheme and may be employed in relation to the activities of any of the City Corporation’s three main funds, or any combination of them (i.e. City Fund, City’s Cash and Bridge House Estates). As the charity is unable to identify its share of the Pension Scheme assets and liabilities, this scheme is accounted for as a defined contribution scheme in the accounts.

(g) Cash flow statement The Trust has taken advantage of the exemption in Financial Reporting Standard 1 (Revised) from the requirement to produce a cash flow statement in the grounds that it is a small entity.

(h) Governance costs The nature of costs allocated to Governance is detailed in note 5.

2. Tax Status of the Charity Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common are registered charities and as such their income and gains are exempt from income tax to the extent that they are applied to their charitable objectives.

3. Indemnity Insurance The City of London Corporation takes out indemnity insurance in respect of all its activities. The charity does not contribute to the cost of that insurance.

PageA2-14 37 BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

4. Incoming Resources Incoming resources are comprised as follows:

2011/12 2010/11

£ £ Incoming resources from generated funds Grant income 107,560 79,411 Donations 24,842 18,202 Interest 1,426 - Grant from City of London Corporation 685,875 794,379 Other Reimbursements and Contributions 109,872 - 929,575 891,992 Incoming resources from charitable activities Sale of goods, products and materials 11,146 327 Fees and Charges 85,178 1,597 Rental income 25,635 31,270 121,959 33,194

Total incoming resources 1,051,534 925,186

Grants Grants were received from the Rural Payments Agency and amounted to £107,560 (2010/11 £79,411).

Grant from City of London Corporation The City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash meets the deficit on running expenses of the charity. Other Reimbursements and Contributions On 12 th September 2011 the assets and liabilities of Stoke Common were transferred to Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common. £109,872 was transferred being the balance of the lump sum from South Buckinghamshire District Council.

Fees and Charges Fees and charges are in respect of film, refreshment licences and car parking income.

PageA2-15 38 BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

5. Resources Expended Resources expended are analysed between activities undertaken directly and support costs as follows:

Charitable activities

Activities undertaken Support costs 2011/12 2010/11 directly £ £ £ £ Charitable activities 821,176 70,885 892,061 889,607 Governance costs - 66,323 66,323 53,727 Total resources expended 821,176 137,208 958,384 943,334

Expenditure on charitable activities includes labour, premises costs, equipment, materials and other supplies and services incurred as the running costs of Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common.

Governance costs General Governance costs relate to the general running of the charity, rather than specific activities within the charity, and include strategic planning and costs associated with Trustee meetings. These costs are borne by the City of London Corporation and charged to individual charities on the basis of time spent, as part of support costs, where appropriate.

Auditor’s remuneration and fees for external financial services The City of London’s external auditor audits this charity as one of the numerous charities administered by the City of London Corporation. The City of London Corporation does not attempt to apportion the audit fee between all the different charities but prefers to treat it as part of the cost to their private funds. No other external professional services were provided for the charity during the year or in the previous year.

Trustee’s expenses Members of the City of London Corporation are unpaid and do not receive allowances in respect of City of London Corporation activities in the City. However, Members may claim travelling expenses in respect of activities outside the City and receive allowances in accordance with a scale when attending a conference or activity on behalf of the City of London Corporation. No expenses have been claimed in the year. (2010/11: £Nil).

PageA2-16 39 BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

6. Support Costs The cost of administration which includes the salaries and associated costs of officers of the City of London Corporation, together with premises and office expenses, is allocated by the City of London Corporation to the activities under its control, including this charity, on the basis of employee time spent on the respective services. These expenses include the cost of administrative and technical staff and external consultants who work on a number of the City of London Corporation’s activities. Support costs allocated by the City of London Corporation to the charitable activity are derived as follows:

Charitable Governance 2011/12 2010/11 activities £ £ £ £ Department Chamberlain - 20,223 20,223 12,115 Comptroller & City Solicitor - 13,476 13,476 14,369 Open Spaces Directorate 27,956 - 27,956 42,223 Town Clerk - 19,265 19,265 15,899 City Surveyor 24,534 10,305 34,839 35,239 Information Systems 9,340 - 9,340 10,595 Other governance and support costs 9,055 3,054 12,109 11,143 Total support costs 70,885 66,323 137,208 141,583

Town Clerk Committee administration, management services, personnel services, public relations, printing and stationery, emergency planning. City Surveyor Work undertaken on the management of the Estate properties, surveying services and advice, supervising and administering repairs and maintenance.

PageA2-17 40 BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

Other governance costs These include the cost of publishing the annual report and financial statements, and the allocation of public relations activities on behalf of the charity.

7. Staff Numbers and Costs The full time equivalent number of staff employed by the City of London Corporation charged to Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common Trust is 13 (2010/11 12) at a cost of £436,609 (2010/11 £433,705). The table below sets out the employment costs and the number of full time equivalent staff charged directly to the charity.

Employer’s Employer’s No of Gross National Pension Total employees Pay Insurance Contribution £ £ £ £ 2011/12 Charitable activities 13 356,055 26,141 64,010 446,206 2010/11 Charitable activities 12 344,212 24,954 64,539 433,705

No employees earned more than £60,000 during the year (2010/11 nil).

8. Heritage Assets Since 1880 the primary purpose of the charity has been the preservation of Burnham Beeches for the recreation and enjoyment of the public. On 12 th September 2011 this was extended to cover Stoke Common. As set out in accounting policy 1(c), the original heritage land and buildings are not recognised in the Financial Statements.

Policies for the preservation and management of Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common are contained in the Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common Conservation Management Plan 2010. Records of heritage assets owned and maintained by Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common can be obtained from the Director of Open Spaces at the principal address as set out on page 2.

PageA2-18 41 BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

9. Tangible Fixed Assets At 31 March 2012 the net book value of tangible fixed assets relating to direct charitable purposes amounted to £729,934 (31 March 2011: £748,082) as set out below.

Land and Total Buildings £ £ Cost Balance at 31 March 2011 835,256 835,256 At 31 March 2011 835,256 835,256

Accumulated depreciation Balance at 31 March 2011 87,174 87,174 Charge for year 18,148 18,148 At 31 March 2012 105,322 105,322

Net book values Balance at 31/03/2011 748,082 748,082 At 31 March 2012 729,934 729,934

10. Debtors Debtors consist of amounts owing to the charity due within one year.

2012 2011 £ £ Rental Debtors 3,753 9,838 Recoverable VAT 4,089 19,179 Other Debtors (5,407) 13,322 Prepayments 3,399 2,895 Total 5,834 45,234

PageA2-19 42 BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

11. Creditors Creditors consist of amounts due within one year. The creditors figure consists of the following amounts:

2012 2011 £ £ Trade Creditors 5,335 8,557 Accruals 28,931 43,728 Other Creditors 1,678 1,119 Sundry Deposits 14,250 14,250 Receipts In Advance 1,519 1,457 Total 51,713 69,111

12. Movement of Funds during the year to 31 March 2012

Net Balance at 1 Incoming/ Balance at 31 April 2011 (outgoing) March 2012 resources £ £ £

Unrestricted Income Stoke Common - 111,298 111,298 Capital Adjustment Account 748,082 (18,148) 729,934 Total Funds 748,082 93,150 841,232

Designated funds Stoke Common On 12 th September 2011 the assets and liabilities of Stoke Common were transferred to Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common. £109,872 was transferred to being the balance of the lump sum from South Buckinghamshire District Council plus £1,426 interest for the year.

Capital Adjustment Account Capital Adjustment Account consists of fixed assets at historic cost less accumulated depreciation in accordance with Note 1 (c).

PageA2-20 43 BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

13. Pensions The triennial valuation undertaken as at 31 st March 2010 revealed a reduced funding level of 86% (from 87% in 2007). Following this valuation, the contribution rates to be applied for 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14 are 17.5%.

In 2011/12, the total employer’s contributions to the pension fund for staff employed on City’s Cash activities (including Burnham Beeches) were £6.0m amounting to 17.5% of pensionable pay. The figures for 2010/11 were £6.5m and 18.5% of pensionable pay.

Although the Pension Fund is a defined benefit scheme, for the purpose of FRS17 City’s Cash (and therefore Burnham Beeches) is unable to identify its share of the underlying assets and liabilities. Consequently the pension arrangements are treated as a defined contributions scheme in the City’s Cash and these accounts. The deficit of the scheme calculated in accordance with FRS17 by independent consulting actuaries at 31 March 2012 is £351m (2010/11 £188m).

14. Related Party Transactions The following disclosures are made in recognition of the principles underlying Financial Reporting Standard 8 concerning related party transactions.

The City of London Corporation as well as being the Trustee also provides management, surveying and administrative services for the charity. The costs incurred by the City of London Corporation in providing these services are charged to the charity. The City of London Corporation also provides banking services, charging all transactions to the charity at cost and crediting or charging interest at a commercial rate. The cost of these services is set out in the Statement of Financial Activities under “Resources Expended” and an explanation of these services is set out in note 6 for support costs of £137,208. The City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash meets the deficit on running expenses of the charity. This amounted to £685,875 as shown in Note 5 to the financial statements.

The City of London Corporation is also the Trustee of a number of other charitable Trusts. These Trusts do not undertake transactions with Burnham Beeches and Stoke Common. A full list of other charitable Trusts of which the City of London Corporation is Trustee is available on application to the Chamberlain of the City of London.

Members of the City of London Corporation responsible for managing the Trust are required to comply with the Relevant Authority (model code of conduct) Order 2001 issued under the Local Government Act 2000 and the City of London Corporation’s guidelines which require that:

• Members sign a declaration agreeing to abide by the City of London Corporation’s code of conduct; • a register of interests is maintained; • pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests are declared during meetings; and

PageA2-21 44 BURNHAM BEECHES AND STOKE COMMON Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

14. Related Party Transactions (continued)

• Members do not participate in decisions where they have an interest.

There are corresponding arrangements for staff to recognise interests and avoid possible conflicts of those interests.

In this way, as a matter of policy and procedure, the City of London Corporation ensures that Members and officers do not exercise control over decisions in which they have an interest. There are no material transactions with organisations related by virtue of Members and Officers interests which require separate reporting. Transactions are undertaken by the Trust on a normal commercial basis.

PageA2-22 45 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 46 Agenda Item 7

Committee(s): Date(s): Item no. Epping Forest and Commons Committee 10 September 2012

Subject: Public Use of Secondary Authority Powers to introduce Dog Control Orders at Burnham Beeches. A Report of: The Superintendent of Burnham Beeches For Decision and Stoke Common

Summary

This report informs members of the proposal to consult on the introduction of Dog Control Orders at Burnham Beeches National Nature Reserve using the recently acquired powers provided under Secondary Authority status. Recommendations 1. Members approve the proposal to consult on the introduction of Dog Control Orders at Burnham Beeches according to the proposals set out in this report and associated timetable – Appendix 1.

Main Report

Background 1. Burnham Beeches is designated as Site of Special Scientific Interest, National Nature Reserve and Special Area of Conservation. It has become an increasingly popular area for dog walking in recent years due in part to the very special nature of the site and in particular because it remains one of the very few open spaces in the District that provides free car parking Monday to Friday each week (excluding bank holidays).

2. Members approved the Burnham Beeches management plan 2010 – 2020 in 2010. That document sets out the detail by which the City intends to achieve a balance between the needs of recreation and conservation whilst meeting its legal obligations.

3. The growing attraction of the site to dog walkers in recent years and the associated challenges this presents has been managed at the site in a variety of ways. In 2004 and following consultation with visitors, the site

Page 47 introduced a ‘Dog Behaviour Code’ that set out the standards of dog behaviour expected of owners when visiting the site. More recently the Open Spaces Dog Policy and Kennel Club Agreement have strengthened the City’s overall commitment to healthy exercise and good behaviour for dogs and their owners.

4. The Common Council of the City of London was designated as a Secondary Authority for the purposes of Chapter 1 of Part 6 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 from 31 st May 2012. This enables the Common Council to make Dog Control Orders (DCO’s) in its open spaces outside the City where the relevant Primary Authority has not already made an Order in respect of the same offence on the same land.

5. South Bucks District Council (SBDC) is the Primary Authority for Burnham Beeches and they have confirmed that they do not intend to exercise these powers in the foreseeable future.

Current Position 6. Burnham Beeches continues to welcome dog walkers and provides the following;

• An internationally important Open Space for their enjoyment. • A ‘Dog Behaviour’ Code. • A Ranger Service that understands the needs of dog walkers (including the management of lost dogs) and other site users. • Dog bins/bags service for free disposal of dog waste. • A ‘dog friendly’ zone at the café including water bowls, lead ties and water bowls.

7. The latest visitor survey (2012) indicates that there are 585,000 visits made to the site each year. The survey also indicates that around 215,000 dog visits occur each year amounting to 960 dogs/ha each year.

8. A report produced by Footprint Ecology and recently presented to this committee (July 2012) demonstrates that Burnham Beeches is under immense and growing visitor pressure and broadly outlines the impact of dogs in terms of their existing and potential impact on wildlife, habitats and visitors.

9. It should be emphasised that the majority of dog walkers attempt to ensure that their pets behave according to the approved Dog Behaviour Code. However, a significant number find it a challenge to meet these standards and this manifests itself in the following common issues:

• Dogs disturbing/chasing wildlife/livestock or similar

Page 48 • Lost dogs (reported as such by site visitors) • Dogs running loose with ‘no owner in sight’ • Dogs ‘disturbing/intimidating’ other site users. • Injured dogs (fights, traffic accidents) • Dog mess being left on site • Dogs without collars and identification(a byelaw offence) • Dog noise – (nuisance barking)

10. 415 incidents have been formally recorded in the last 2 years at the Beeches and in all probability this represents only a fraction of the total number occurring each year. Each incident places a demand on the sites resources.

Byelaws 11. Burnham Beeches has specific byelaws that set out the legal standards of behaviour expected of dog owners when on site. They require that:

• Dogs are kept under effective control. • Dogs wear a collar that bears the name and address of the owner. • Hunting or chasing of ‘animals’ game or birds does not occur.

12. The definition of ‘effective control’ is both subjective and problematic when it comes to the management of dog behaviour issues. It is for that reason that the site’s Dog Behaviour Code defines effective control as being ‘within sight of the owner at all times and coming back immediately when called’. However, this is not a legal definition, and whether a dog is under effective control or not can only be determined by a Court.

13. Contraventions of byelaws are dealt with at the local Magistrate’s Court and a fine is applied if found guilty. This process is time consuming and can appear to be very heavy handed. For this reason the sites byelaws tend only to be used for the most serious offences such as attacks on visitors, wildlife and livestock. Byelaws have proved to be much less effective for preventing repetitive, nuisance type behaviours.

14. For these reasons it is recommended that the existing byelaws are complemented by DCO’s. Only byelaws that deal with the same offence on the same land as a DCO lapse. The existing byelaws at Burnham Beeches would therefore remain in force.

Proposed Dog Control Orders 15. It is proposed that all five of the different types of DCO’s (listed below) would be appropriate for Burnham Beeches and should form the basis of the consultation i.e.

Page 49 i. Failure to remove dog faeces . This control could be applied to the entire Open Space.

ii. Failure to put and keep a dog on a lead when directed to do so by an authorised officer (the length of the lead can also be stipulated). This control could be applied to the entire Open Space.

iii. Taking more than a specified number of dogs onto land . This control could be applied to the entire Open Space. The current proposal is for a maximum of four dogs per owner. iv. Permitting a dog to enter land from which dogs are excluded. An example of where this control might be applied is the existing fenced enclosure area adjacent to the café. v. Failure to keep a dog on a lead in a defined area. An example of where this control might be applied is the fenced enclosure around the café serving area.

16. DCO’s can be seasonal or applied at different periods in the year or week – however it is currently proposed that they would all apply 365 days of the year. DCO’s can also apply to the whole site or only part of the site. Members will note that it is proposed that the first three DCO’s apply across the whole site and that the fourth and fifth apply only to smaller areas such as the café.

17. It is possible to formalise exemptions for ‘assistance dogs’ where DCO’s are in place.

18. It is proposed that, if DCO’s are introduced at Burnham Beeches, the Superintendent will provide members with regular updates detailing their effectiveness, and implement a full review in year 3.

Consultation 19. Before making any DCO’s your Committee must be satisfied that they are justified. The Superintendent, on your behalf, must consult all other Primary and Secondary Authorities for the area and also publish a notice

Page 50 of the proposals in a local newspaper, allowing at least 28 days for representations.

Enforcement 20. The penalty in relation to any offence in a DCO is, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale – currently £1,000. However the legislation also allows the option of offering the offender a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) as a means of avoiding prosecution in the Magistrate’s Court.

21. The amount of the fixed penalty payable is the amount specified by the Authority which made the DCO – or if no amount is specified, £75. The amount would typically stand at between £50 and £80 per offence perhaps with an early payment reduction of 50% if paid within 10 days. The precise amounts – should DCO’s be introduced at Burnham Beeches – have not yet been finalised.

22. Primary Authorities can enforce their own DCO’s. Secondary Authorities can enforce their own DCO’s, and those made by the Primary Authority. Enforcement is by authorised officers – which means authorised employees, PCSO’s and other persons authorised under arrangements made with the Authority. FPN’s are payable to the Primary or Secondary Authority whose officer gave the notice. Again, further thought needs to be given to the most appropriate arrangements for Burnham Beeches, should DCO’s be introduced.

23. The use of FPN’s would be appropriate for most offences. Automatic prosecutions would be reserved for the most serious incidents. It is hoped that this ‘twin approach’ will be a significant help in reducing the number of dog related incidents and restoring the balance between the various needs of site visitors and wildlife.

24. As part of the proposals to introduce DCO’s it is necessary to produce and consult upon the ‘Enforcement Strategy’. The draft strategy will be reported to Committee together with the final proposals for the DCO’s.

25. The aim of the Enforcement Strategy will be to encourage responsible dog ownership on the site by proportionate enforcement of DCO’s and thereby reduce the number of dog related incidents. A typical strategy would contain the following elements:

• Statements of intent, and summary of all consultations • Descriptions of powers to be used, and how, where and when they are to be applied

Page 51 • Fines and enforcement procedures and onwards to magistrate’s court if required • Resources - budget, staffing, training • Administration - record keeping and use of receipts

26. Once the Superintendent has finalised these details the proposals will be brought back to Committee for approval, prior to the formal consultation process.

Financial and Risk Implications 27. The cost of the DCO consultation and enforcement process is estimated at £10,000 including officer time, training, consultation costs and the provision of appropriate signage and other materials. These costs will be met from local risk budgets.

28. The development of appropriate administration procedures is key to the success of the proposals. Further research is required to resolve these issues.

29. There will then be an on-going cost to administer the scheme although it is possible that income via the FPN’ will meet running costs.

HR Implications 30. The Rangers at Burnham Beeches currently issue parking tickets for failure to ‘pay and display’. It is likely that they will also enforce the DCO’s (perhaps with the assistance of local PCSO’s) and issue the FPN’s. This may require additional ‘appropriate training’.

Strategic Implications 31. The proposals support the Strategic aims of the City and Open Spaces Department by:

1. Quality. Providing, safe, secure and accessible Open Spaces and services on behalf of London and the Nation. 2. Inclusion. Involving communities and partners in developing a sense of place through the care and management of our sites 3. Environment. Delivering sustainable working practices to promote the variety of life and protect the Open Spaces for the enjoyment of future generations 4. Promotion. Promote opportunities to value and enjoy the outdoors for recreation, learning and healthy living 5. People. Manage, develop and empower a capable and motivated work force to achieve high standards of safety and performance.

Page 52 Consultees 32. The Town Clerk, Property Asset Manager, Human Resources and Comptroller and City Solicitor have been consulted in the preparation of this report.

Conclusion 33. Dog walking at Burnham Beeches has grown in popularity over recent years. Incidents related to dog walking are recorded by staff and remain high despite proactive management such as the site’s Dog Behaviour Code, waste removal and other ‘dog friendly’ services.

34. The site’s byelaws have not been effective in reducing repetitive, nuisance behaviour and the use of DCO’s at Burnham Beeches is proposed as a complementary enforcement mechanism.

35. DCO’s offer additional controls and a more flexible approach to enforcement compared to the byelaws. This provides an opportunity to establish a balance between the needs of the many site users.

Background Papers: Report of the Director of Open Spaces – Dog Control Orders - Epping Forest th and Commons Committee July 9 2012

Contact: Andy Barnard 0207 332 6676 [email protected]

Page 53 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 54

Dog Control Orders – Preliminary Timetable.

Action Who Target Comments Date Stage 1 – Informal approaches 1. Liaise with District Enforcement AB July ‘12 Can they take on board the administration and enforcement. 2. Staff Co nsultation AB July 2012 Ensure all staff are kept up to date and have the opportunity to influence the impact on their roles. Meeting date set for 16 /7/12 3. Contact SBDC in writing AB Aug ‘12 Forewarn of introduction of DCO’s and impending letter of formal consultation in 2013. Ask if they have any suitable enforcement officers whose time we could buy. 4. Contact Parish Council s (FPC and AB Aug ‘12 Forewarn of impending formal consultation Burnham) process. 5. Thames Valley Police AB Aug ‘12 Forewarn of impending formal consultation process and ask if we can buy PCSO time and admin procedures 6. City Solicitor AB Aug ‘12 PC guidance approved + other DEFRA docs provided. No impact re CROW – proceed as independent open space 16/6/12 7. EFCC report AB Sept 2012 Setting out the intention and basis by which we want to apply DCO’s at BB and building on SI’s May ’12 report – see file for guidance on this issue. 8. Staff Consultation AB Nov 2012 Ensure all staff are kept up to date and have the opportunity to influence the impact on their roles 9. City Solicitor/Director of O S SI/CS Jan ‘13 Determine how best to administer of enforcement i.e. local or central, internal or external (informed by 1-4 above). 10.Devise administration and AB Jan - Feb Based on outcomes of 1 - 6 above. enforcement procedures, resolve ‘13 personnel issues. Stage 2 – Formal Consultation 11 . Produce a formal enforcement MH April ‘13 Use as the basis for all formal consultation strategy, justification and associated maps and site signage etc. 12. Seek Kennel Club comments AB April – May Stress proportionality etc. and approval for enforcement ‘13 strategy 13. Get EFCC approval of the AB May ‘13 Based on work produced by MH strategy and consultation timetable 14. Agree wording of all DC Orders AB May – July applying to the site City ‘13 Solicitor 15. Marketting campaign? CM May ‘13 This isn’t strictly necessary and may be more trouble than it’s worth – perhaps best done as an info campaign after the formal consultation with SBDC etc 16 . Formal written consultation with May – July Usually just a letter asking for opinion but AB SBDC ‘13 may present to panels if required 17 . Formal written consultation with May – July Usually just a letter but AB may present to FPC ‘13 meeting(s) if required 18 . Formal consultation with local May – July If required see access issues above access group ‘13 19 . Arrange p ublic notice of June – July Best done through local papers and on site intention to enforce ‘13 notices. Stage 3 - Implementation 20 . Deliver staff training MH Aug ‘13 If needed 21. Publicise enforcement date AB Sept’13 Local Newspapers and site posters

AB – 24 th August 2012 Page 55 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 56 Agenda Item 9

Committee(s): Date(s): Item no. Epping Forest and Commons 10 September 2012 Subject: Public Epping Forest Trustee’s Annual report and Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 March 2012 Report of: For Information The Chamberlain

Summary

The Trustee’s Annual Report and Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 March 2012 for Epping Forest are presented in the format required by the Charity Commission. Recommendations • It is recommended that the Trustee’s Annual Report and Financial Statements be noted.

Main Report

1. The Trustee’s Annual Report and Financial Statements, in the format that is required by the Charity Commission, are presented for information. The accounts have been signed on behalf of the Trust by the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Finance Committee and have been audited.

3. Much of the information contained within the Annual Report and Financial Statements has already been presented to your Committee via budget and outturn reports.

Contact: Alison Elam | [email protected] | 020 7332 1081

Page 57 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 58

EPPING FOREST

REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2012

Charity Number: 232990

Page 59 EPPING FOREST

Trustee’s Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

Contents Page

Trustee’s Annual Report 2-7

Independent Auditor’s Report 8-9

Statement of Financial Activities 10

Balance Sheet 11

Cash Flow Statement 12

Notes to the Financial Statements 13-26

PageA3-1 60 EPPING FOREST Trustee’s Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2012

1. Reference and Administration Details Charity Name: Epping Forest

Registered Charity Number: 232990

Principal Address: Guildhall, London EC2P 2EJ

Trustee: The Mayor, Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London

Chief Executive: The Town Clerk of the City of London Corporation

Treasurer: The Chamberlain of London

Solicitor: The Comptroller and City Solicitor

Banker: Lloyds TSB Bank plc City Office, PO Box 72 Bailey Drive Gillingham, Kent ME8 OLS

Auditor: Deloitte LLP Chartered Accountants and Statutory Auditor 2 New Street Square London EC4A 3BZ

2. Structure, Governance and Management The governing document The governing documents are the Epping Forest Acts 1878 and 1880 as amended. The charity is constituted as a charitable trust.

Trustee Selection methods The Mayor, Commonalty and Citizens of London known as the City of London Corporation is the Trustee of Epping Forest. Elected Aldermen and Members of the City of London Corporation are appointed to the committee governing Epping Forest by the Court of Common Council of the City of London Corporation.

Policies and procedures for the appointment, induction and training of Trustee The City of London Corporation makes available to its Members seminars and briefings on various aspects of the City’s activities, including those concerning Epping Forest, as it considers necessary to enable the Members to efficiently carry out their duties.

PageA3-2 61 EPPING FOREST Trustee’s Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2012

The Standing Orders and Financial Regulations are available from the Town Clerk at the registered address.

Details of related parties and wider networks Details of any related party transactions are disclosed in Note 16 of the notes to the Financial Statements.

A key risk register has been prepared for this charity which has been reviewed by the committee acting on behalf of the Trustee. It identifies the potential impact of key risks and the measures which are in place to mitigate such risks.

3. Objectives and Activities for the Public Benefit The Trustee has due regard to the Charity Commission’s public benefit guidance when setting objectives and planning activities.

The purpose of the charity is the preservation of Epping Forest in perpetuity by the City of London Corporation as the Conservators of Epping Forest, as an Open Space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public. The Open Space consists of the lands known as Epping Forest including Wanstead Park and Highams Park in Essex. Various buffer lands have been acquired by the City Corporation around the edges of Epping Forest.

This charity is operated as part of the City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash. The City of London Corporation is committed to fund the ongoing net operational costs of the charity in accordance with the purpose which is the preservation of Epping Forest in perpetuity by the City of London Corporation as the Conservators of Epping Forest, as an Open Space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public.

PageA3-3 62 EPPING FOREST Trustee’s Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2012

4. Achievements and Performance Key Targets for 2011/12 and review of achievement The key targets for 2011/12 together with their outcomes were:

• Epping Forest 10-Year Management Plan 2012 to 2021 – Full public consultation to take place through 2011 prior to writing final plan. The Statement of Community Involvement has been approved by committee. Public consultation is on track for 2012/13. • Epping Forest Branching Out Heritage Lottery Award - in 2011 we will continue to deliver stage 3 of the project – completion of building works at the new visitor hub at Chingford and Butlers Retreat café; interpretation contract and surrounding landscaping works. Work also includes Year 3 of Discovering Epping Forest, Cycle 3 of Apprenticeship Scheme, Forest furniture standards and installing way-marked trails. Volunteering and community engagement will be on-going. Butlers retreat has opened, the new visitor hub at Chingford, interpretation contract and surrounding landscape are due completion in Summer 2012. • Epping Forest Olympic Cycleway, Leyton and Wanstead Flats – in 2011 will complete construction Northern section, subject to continuing liaison with LB Waltham Forest. This cycle path has been completed. London Borough of Waltham Forest have taken ownership of care and maintenance of cycle paths as agreed. • Wanstead Park – Park and Garden of Special Historic Interest - Funding to be sought to develop Conservation Statement to full Conservation Management Plan covering some or the entire site, including community engagement and consultation. Due to funding issues, this project has been delayed. • Chingford Golf Course – To complete the implementation of new management arrangements including performance contract and agreements for future security of the three clubs. Epping Forest have met with Golf Club professionals and will be implementing new arrangements in 2012/13. • Epping Forest Grazing – Trial of invisible fencing ( Boviguard ) to control cattle to begin May 2011, with the objective of reducing the number of planned cattle grids required to allow extensive conservation grazing of the wood-pasture. Grazing contracts to be renewed via a competitive tender with appointment of a grazier scheduled for May 2011. Invisible fencing has been trialled, trials will continue into 2012/13. A new 3 year grazing contract has been issued and agreed by committee. • United Kingdom Woodland Assurance Standard – This is part of English Woodland Grant Scheme. Application to be submitted relating to Buffer Lands woodlands with further work now required on delimiting the areas that might form the basis for a successful application. With the support of agriculture environment scheme payments, good progress is being made to implement the Buffer Land Action plan, pursuing improvements for the protection enhancement and recreational access on land immediately adjacent to Epping Forest. • Forest Transport Strategy – Public Inquiry on cattle grid locations in partnership with Essex County Council. Implementation of speed limit reductions and road closures programmed for 2011. Installation of phase 1 cattle grids, timber fencing and monitoring impact on natural environment and visitor experience. Liaison with local authorities over improved public transport connections. The Secretary of State has approved Epping Forest cattle grids policy. Speed limits of 40 mph have been imposed on Rangers Road. 2011/12 was the second year of operation for Epping Forest shuttle bus. • Community Engagement – Forest Forum meetings to continue and will include pre- consultation on Management Plan through summer 2011 and a series of events and initiatives for the public. The SCI is now the framework for all future consultations. PageA3-4 63 EPPING FOREST Trustee’s Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2012

4. Achievements and Performance

• Land registration – project to ensure all land owned and managed as part of Epping Forest is fully recorded, as many old and ancient sections documented prior to the foundation of the Land Registry. This will continue into 2012/13.

All of the above achievements enhanced the Open Space for the benefit of the public.

5. Financial Review Review of financial position The modest increase in the market value of the investments held in the Charities Pool reflects the relative outperformance achieved by the Fund Manager compared to the market returns, due mainly to favourable stock selection.

Investment income of £17,985 (2010/11 £18,407) was earned during the year. Other income received included £9,787 from donations (2010/11 £26,664), £3,010,005 from grants (2010/11 £800,670), £518,973 from sales, fees and charges (2010/11 £404,307) and £228,871 from rents (2010/11 £270,718). The contribution towards the running costs of the charity amounted to £4,313,121 (2010/11 £5,804,677). This cost was met by the City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash.

Additions to land and capital expenditure on buildings are included in the financial statements as fixed assets at historic cost, less provision for depreciation and any impairment, where this cost can be reliably measured.

Reserves Policy The charity is wholly supported by the City of London Corporation which is committed to maintain and preserve Epping Forest out of its City’s Cash Funds. These Funds are used to meet the deficit on running expenses on a year by year basis. Consequently, this charity has no free reserves and a reserves policy is therefore inappropriate.

The charity has designated a number of unrestricted funds the details of which are set out in Note 14 to the financial statements.

Investment Policy The charity’s investments are held in units of the City of London Charities Pool. The investment policy of the Charities Pool is to provide a real increase in annual income in the long term whilst preserving the value of the capital base. The annual report and financial statements of the Charities Pool are available from the Chamberlain of London.

Going Concern The Trustee considers the Trust to be a going concern. Please see Note 1(b) to the Financial Statements.

PageA3-5 64 EPPING FOREST Trustee’s Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2012

6. Plans for Future Periods The targets for 2012/13 and beyond are: • Epping Forest 10-Year Management Plan 2011 to 2021 – Commission two consultants, one to write report and one to deliver web-based consultancy. Draft tender document, commission consultants and form Working Groups, to develop the new plan. • Epping Forest Branching Out Heritage Lottery Award – Launch the new Centre at Chingford, with interpretative materials and retail fit out. • New Corporate Website – Content to be reviewed and Epping Forest pages to be revised. • Chingford Golf Course – To complete the implementation of new management arrangements including performance contract and agreements for future security of the three clubs. • Forest Transport Strategy – Implementation of speed limit reductions and road closures programmed for 2012. Installation of phase 2 cattle grids, timber fencing and monitoring impact on natural environment and visitor experience. Continue to provide Shuttle bus service. • Tree Planting fund – Support Appeal launch • Highams Park – Dam project consultation, provide assistance with Scout hut relocation and produce Conservation Management Plan. • Jubilee Pond – Carry out public consultation on final design, seek planning permission and develop final restoration and landscaping plans. • Forest Standards – Commission a designer and compile design document. • Land registration – Phase 2, Carry out work to improve records, ensure all land owned and managed as part of Epping Forest is fully recorded, as many old and ancient sections documented prior to the foundation of the Land Registry.

PageA3-6 65 EPPING FOREST Trustee’s Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2012

7. The Financial Statements The financial statements consist of the following and include comparative figures for the previous year. • Statement of Financial Activities showing all resources available and all expenditure incurred and reconciling all changes in the funds of the charity. • Balance Sheet setting out the assets and liabilities of the charity. • Cash Flow Statement showing the cash inflows and outflows of the charity for the year. • Notes to the Financial Statements describing the accounting policies adopted and explaining information contained in the financial statements.

The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with statutory requirements and the Statement of Recommended Practice Accounting and Reporting by Charities (Revised 2005).

8. Statement of Trustee’s Responsibilities The Trustee is responsible for preparing the Trustee’s Report and the financial statements in accordance with applicable law and United Kingdom Accounting Standards (United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice).

The law applicable to charities in England & Wales requires the Trustee to prepare financial statements for each financial year which give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the charity and of the incoming resources and application of resources of the charity for that period. In preparing these financial statements, the Trustee is required to:

• select suitable accounting policies and then apply them consistently; • observe the methods and principles in the Charities SORP; • make judgments and estimates that are reasonable and prudent; • state whether applicable accounting standards have been followed; and • prepare the financial statements on the going concern basis unless it is inappropriate to presume that the charity will continue in business.

The Trustee is responsible for keeping proper accounting records that disclose with reasonable accuracy at any time the financial position of the charity and enable them to ensure that the financial statements comply with the Charities Act 2011, the Charity (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2008 and the provisions of the charity’s governing documents. They are also responsible for safeguarding the assets of the charity and hence for taking reasonable steps for the prevention and detection of fraud and other irregularities.

9. Adopted and signed for on behalf of the Trustee.

R.A.H. Chadwick Raymond Michael Catt Chairman of Finance Committee Deputy Chairman of Guildhall, London Finance Committee Guildhall, London

PageA3-7 66 EPPING FOREST

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT TO THE TRUSTEE OF EPPING FOREST CHARITY

We have audited the financial statements of Epping Forest for the year ended 31 March 2012 which comprise the Statement of Financial Activities, the Balance Sheet, the Cash Flow Statement and the related Notes 1 to 16. The financial reporting framework that has been applied in their preparation is applicable law and United Kingdom Accounting Standards (United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice).

This report is made solely to the charity’s trustee, as a body, in accordance with section 144 of the Charities Act 2011 and regulations made under section 154 of that Act. Our audit work has been undertaken so that we might state to the charity’s trustee those matters we are required to state to it in an auditor’s report and for no other purpose. To the fullest extent permitted by law, we do not accept or assume responsibility to anyone other than the charity and the charity’s trustee as a body, for our audit work, for this report, or for the opinions we have formed.

Respective responsibilities of trustee and auditor As explained more fully in the Trustee’s Responsibilities Statement, the Trustee is responsible for the preparation of the financial statements which give a true and fair view.

PageA3-8 67 EPPING FOREST

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT TO THE TRUSTEE OF EPPING FOREST CHARITY (CONTINUED)

PageA3-9 68

EPPING FOREST Statement of Financial Activities for the year ended 31 March 2012

Notes Unrestricted Funds

General Designated Restricted 2011/12 2010/11 Fund Funds Fund

£ £ £ £ £ Incoming resources Incoming resources from generated funds Voluntary income 462,419 2,020,627 536,746 3,019,792 827,334 Investment income 17,985 - - 17,985 18,407 Grant from City of London Corporation 4,313,121 - - 4,313,121 5,804,677 Incoming resources from charitable activities 747,844 - - 747,844 675,025 Total incoming resources 4 5,541,369 2,020,627 536,746 8,098,742 7,325,443

Resources expended Charitable activities 4,906,937 347,236 406,628 5,660,801 6,371,597 Governance costs 407,202 - - 407,202 382,278 Total resources expended 5 5,314,139 347,236 406,628 6,068,003 6,753,875

Net incoming resources before transfers 227,230 1,673,391 130,118 2,030,739 571,568 Transfer to/(from) designated funds (227,230) 227,230 - - - Net incoming resources before other recognised gains - 1,900,621 130,118 2,030,739 571,568

Other recognised gains Net gain on investment assets 10 - 217 - 217 288 Net movement in funds - 1,900,838 130,118 2,030,956 571,856

Reconciliation of funds

Total funds brought forward 14 - 3,877,065 - 3,877,065 3,305,209 Total funds carried forward 14 - 5,777,903 130,118 5,908,021 3,877,065

All operations are continuing.

PageA3-10 69

EPPING FOREST Balance Sheet as at 31 March 2012

Notes 2012 2011

£ £ Fixed Assets Heritage Assets 8 115,600 - Tangible Fixed Assets 9 4,631,144 2,554,352 Investments - 1,202 Charities Pool Units 10 7,609 7,392 4,754,353 2,561,744

Current Assets Stocks 32,363 34,945 Debtors 11 164,443 381,071 Cash at bank and in hand 1,308,230 1,410,796 1,505,036 1,826,812 Liabilities Creditors: Amounts falling due within one year 12 (289,118) (452,241) Net Current Assets 1,215,918 1,374,571

Total Assets less Current Liabilities 5,970,271 3,936,315

Creditors: Amounts falling due after more than one year 13 (62,250) (59,250) Net Assets 5,908,021 3,877,065

The funds of the charity Unrestricted income funds Designated Funds 14 5,777,903 3,877,065 Restricted Funds 14 130,118 - Total charity funds 5,908,021 3,877,065

Approved and signed for on behalf of the Trustee

The notes at pages 12 to 26 form part of these accounts.

______Chris Bilsland Chamberlain of London st 21 August 2012

PageA3-11 70

EPPING FOREST Cash Flow Statement for the year ended 31 March 2012

Notes 2011/12 2010/11

£ £ Net cash inflow from operating activities 1 2,172,986 405,061 Returns on investments and servicing of finance 2 17,985 18,407 Capital expenditure (2,293,537) (610,060) (Decrease) in cash in the year (102,566) (186,592)

Notes to the Cash Flow Statement

Note 1: Reconciliation of net incoming resources to net cash inflow from operating activities £ £ Net incoming resources before other recognised gains 2,030,739 571,568 Depreciation 101,144 97,016 Investment income (17,985) (18,407) Decrease/(increase) in stocks 2,582 (18,194) Decrease/(increase) in debtors 214,806 (143,313) (Decrease) in creditors (163,123) (87,726) Increase in long term creditors 3,000 - Decrease in provisions 1,823 4,117 Net cash inflow from operating activities 2,172,986 405,061

Note 2: Returns on investments and servicing of finance Investment income received 17,985 18,407

31 01 April Cash Flow March 2011 Note 3: Analysis of changes in net funds 2012 £ £ £ Cash at bank and in hand 1,410,796 (102,566) 1,308,230 Change in net funds 1,410,796 (102,566) 1,308,230

Note 4: Reconciliation of net cash flow to 2012 2011 movement in net funds £ £ (Decrease) in cash in the year (102,566) (186,592) Net funds balance brought forward 1,410,796 1,597,388 Net funds balance carried forward 1,308,230 1,410,796

PageA3-12 71 EPPING FOREST Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

1. Accounting Policies The following accounting policies have been applied consistently in dealing with items which are considered material in relation to the charity’s financial statements.

(a) Basis of preparation The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the Charities Act 2011 and Statement of Recommended Practice Accounting and Reporting by Charities (Revised 2005) and under the historical cost accounting rules (except for investments recorded at valuation), and in accordance with applicable United Kingdom accounting standards.

(b) Going Concern The governing documents place an obligation on the City of London Corporation to preserve the open spaces for the benefit of the public. The City of London Corporation is committed to fulfilling this obligation which is reflected through its proactive management of, and ongoing funding for, the services and activities required. The funding is provided from the City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash, which annually receives considerable income from its managed funds and property investments. Each year a medium term financial forecast is updated for City’s Cash. The latest forecast for the period to 2015/16, anticipates that adequate funds will be available to enable the Trust to continue to fulfil its obligations. On this basis, the Trustee considers the Trust to be a going concern for the foreseeable future.

Epping Forest comprises 2,476 hectares (6,118 acres) of land stretching 12 miles from Manor Park in East London to just north of Epping in Essex, together with associated buildings. The objectives of the charity are the preservation of Epping Forest for the recreation and enjoyment of the public. Epping Forest is considered to be inalienable (i.e. may not be disposed of without specific statutory powers).

Land and the original associated buildings are considered to be heritage assets. In respect of the original land and buildings, cost or valuation amounts are not included in these accounts as reliable cost information is not available and a significant cost would be involved in the reconstruction of past accounting records, or in the valuation, which would be onerous compared to the benefit to the users of these accounts.

Additions to the original land and capital expenditure on buildings and other assets are included as fixed assets at historic cost, less provision for depreciation and any impairment, where this cost can be reliably measured.

PageA3-13 72 EPPING FOREST Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

1. Accounting Policies (continued)

Tangible Fixed Assets

These are included at historic cost less depreciation on a straight line basis to write off their costs over their estimated useful lives and less any provision for impairment. Land is not depreciated and other fixed assets are depreciated from the year following that of their acquisition. Typical asset lives are as follows: Years Operational buildings 30 to 50 Landscaping/Conservation up to 50 Improvements and refurbishments to buildings up to 30 Equipment 5 to 10 Infrastructure 15 Heavy vehicles and plant 7

(d) Investments Investments are pooled with those from other small City of London charities. Underlying Listed Company investments are valued at The Stock Exchange Trading System price at 31 March 2012. Other investments are valued annually at the middle market price at the close of business on 31 March 2012. Gains and losses for the year on investments held as fixed assets are included in the Statement of Financial Activities.

The unrealised gain on investments at the balance sheet date is included in the Trust’s funds. The net gain on investments shown in the Statement of Financial Activities represents the difference in the market value of investments between 1 April 2011 and 31 March 2012.

(e) Incoming resources Recognition of incoming resources All incoming resources are included in the Statement of Financial Activities gross without deduction of expenses in the financial year in which they are entitled to be received. Voluntary income Voluntary income comprises public donations and government grants. Volunteers No amounts are included in the Statement of Financial Activities for services donated by volunteers, as this cannot be quantified. Grants received Grants are included in the Statement of Financial Activities in the financial year in which they are entitled to be received.

Grant from City of London Corporation The City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash meets the deficit on running expenses of the charity and also provides grant funding for certain capital works.

PageA3-14 73 EPPING FOREST Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

1. Accounting Policies (continued)

Rental income Rental income is included in the Charity’s incoming resources for the year and amounts due but not received at the year end are included in debtors.

(f) Resources expended Allocation of costs between different activities The City of London Corporation charges staff costs to the charitable activity and governance costs on a time spent basis. Associated office accommodation is charged out proportionately to the square footage used. All other costs are charged to the charitable activity.

(g) Stocks Stocks are valued at the lower of cost and net realisable value.

(h) Pension costs The City of London’s Pension Scheme is a funded defined benefits scheme. City of London Corporation staff are eligible for membership of the pension scheme and may be employed in relation to the activities of any of the City Corporation’s three main funds, or any combination of them (i.e. City Fund, City’s Cash and Bridge House Estates). As the charity is unable to identify its share of the Pension Scheme assets and liabilities, this scheme is accounted for as a defined contribution scheme in the accounts.

(i) Fund accounting The Trust may, at the Trustee’s discretion, set aside funds, which would otherwise form part of general funds, for particular purposes. These funds are known as designated funds. The purposes of these funds are described in Note 14 to the accounts. Restricted funds are those received by Epping Forest to be used only for the purpose set out in the conditions of the grant. The purposes of these funds are described in Note 14 to the accounts.

(j) Governance costs The nature of costs allocated to Governance is detailed in Note 6.

2. Tax Status of the Charity

Epping Forest is a registered charity and as such, its income and gains are exempt from income tax to the extent that they are applied to its charitable objectives.

3. Indemnity Insurance The City of London Corporation takes out indemnity insurance in respect of all of its activities. The charity does not contribute to the cost of that insurance.

PageA3-15 74 EPPING FOREST Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

4. Incoming Resources Incoming resources are comprised as follows:

Unrestricted Funds

Restricted 2011/12 2010/11 General Designated Funds Fund Funds £ £ £ £ £ Incoming resources from generated funds Voluntary income - Grants 452,632 2,020,627 536,746 3,010,005 800,670 Voluntary income - Donations 9,787 - - 9,787 26,664 Investment income - Interest 17,985 - - 17,985 18,407 480,404 2,020,627 536,746 3,037,777 845,741 Revenue and capital grants from City of London Corporation 4,313,121 - - 4,313,121 5,804,677 4,793,525 2,020,627 536,746 7,350,898 6,650,418

Incoming resources from charitable activities Charges for use of facilities 468,028 - - 468,028 361,259 Sales 50,945 - - 50,945 43,048 Rental income 228,871 - - 228,871 270,718 747,844 - - 747,844 675,025

Total incoming resources 5,541,369 2,020,627 536,746 8,098,742 7,325,443

Grants Grants were received from the Rural Payments Agency, the Forestry Commission, the Tubney Trust, the Environment Agency, the Heritage Lottery Fund, Essex County Council, English Heritage, the Football Foundation and the London Marathon Charitable Trust.

Sales This income is generated from the sale of leaflets, books, maps, cards and other publications relating to Epping Forest.

Designated Funds Designated funds consist of a capital contribution of £1,994,764 from the Heritage lottery Fund towards the Epping Forest Branching Out Project, a contribution of £24,488 from Essex County Council and a capital receipt of £1,374 relating to “Right of Way over track to Forest Cottage”.

PageA3-16 75 EPPING FOREST Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

4. Incoming Resources (continued) Grant from City’s Cash The City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash meets the deficit on the running expenses of the charity.

Charges for the use of facilities Fees and charges are made to the public for the use of facilities, admissions and services.

5. Resources Expended Resources expended are analysed between activities undertaken directly and support costs as follows:

Activities Support undertaken 2011/12 2010/11 costs directly £ £ £ £ Charitable activity Preservation and operation of Epping Forest 5,162,842 497,959 5,660,801 6,371,597 Governance costs - 407,202 407,202 382,278 Total resources expended 5,162,842 905,161 6,068,003 6,753,875

No resources are expended by third parties to undertake charitable work on behalf of the charity.

Charitable activity Expenditure on the charitable activity includes labour, premises costs, equipment, materials and other supplies and services incurred as the running costs of Epping Forest.

Governance costs General Governance costs relate to the general running of the charity, rather than specific activities within the charity and include strategic planning and costs associated with Trustee meetings. These costs are borne by the City of London Corporation and charged to individual charities on the basis of time spent, as part of support costs, where appropriate.

Auditor’s remuneration and fees for external financial services The City of London’s external auditor reviews this charity as one of the numerous charities administered by the City of London Corporation. The City of London Corporation does not attempt to apportion the audit fee between all the different charities but prefers to treat it as part of the cost to its private funds. No other external financial services were provided for the Trust during the year or in the previous year.

PageA3-17 76 EPPING FOREST Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

5. Resources Expended (continued) Trustee’s expenses Members of the City of London Corporation are unpaid and do not receive allowances in respect of the City of London Corporation activities in the City. However, Members may claim travelling expenses in respect of activities outside the City and receive allowances in accordance with a scale when attending a conference or activity on behalf of the City of London Corporation. No expenses were claimed in 2011/12 (2010/11: £Nil).

Support costs allocated by the City of London Corporation to the charitable activity are derived as follows:

Charitable Governance 2011/12 2010/11 activities £ £ £ £ Department Chamberlain - 123,144 123,144 85,715 Comptroller & City Solicitor - 85,405 85,405 101,667 Open Spaces Directorate 152,180 - 152,180 271,724 Town Clerk - 117,309 117,309 112,494 City Surveyor 186,155 62,748 248,903 232,063 Information Systems 57,247 - 57,247 66,219 Other governance and support costs 102,377 18,596 120,973 132,293 Total support costs 497,959 407,202 905,161 1,002,175

PageA3-18 77 EPPING FOREST Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

Town Clerk Committee administration, management services, human resources, public relations, printing and stationery, emergency planning. City Surveyor Work undertaken on the management of the Estate properties, surveying services and advice, supervising and administering repairs and maintenance. Information Systems The support and operation of the City of London Corporation’s central and corporate systems on the basis of usage of the systems; the provision of “desktop” and network support services and small IS development projects that might be required by the charity. Other support and Contribution towards various costs including publishing the governance costs annual report and financial statements, central training, the occupational health, union costs and the environmental and sustainability section.

7. Staff Numbers and costs The full time equivalent number of staff employed by the City of London Corporation charged to Epping Forest in 2011/12 is 91 (2010/11 97) at a cost of £2,704,408 (2010/11 £2,875,055). The table below sets out the employment costs and the number of full time equivalent staff charged directly to the charity.

Employers' Employers' No of Gross Pay National Pension Total employees Insurance Contribution £ £ £ £ 2011/12 Charitable activities 91 2,196,852 151,024 356,532 2,704,408 2010/11 Charitable activities 97 2,309,793 163,866 401,396 2,875,055

No employees earned more than £60,000 per annum (2010/11 £Nil).

PageA3-19 78 EPPING FOREST Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

8. Heritage Assets At 31 March 2012 the net book value of heritage assets relating to direct charitable purposes amounts to £115,600 (31 March 2011 £nil) as set out below.

Heritage Total £ £ Cost At 1 April 2011 - - Additions 115,600 115,600 At 31 March 2012 115,600 115,600

Depreciation At 1 April 2011 - - Charge for year - - At 31 March 2012 115,600 115,600

Net book value At 31 March 2012 115,600 115,600

At 31 March 2011 - -

Since 1878 the primary purpose of the Charity has been the preservation of Epping Forest for the recreation and enjoyment of the public. As set out in accounting policy 1(c), the original heritage land and buildings are not recognised in the Financial Statements.

Policies for the preservation and management of Epping Forest are contained in the Epping Forest Conservation Management Plan 2010. Records of heritage assets owned and maintained by Epping Forest are held by the Director of Open Spaces.

Additions made to heritage land or buildings, where relevant information is available, are included at historic cost less accumulated depreciation in accordance with Note 1 (c).

PageA3-20 79 EPPING FOREST Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

9. Tangible Fixed Assets At 31 March 2012 the net book value of tangible fixed assets relating to direct charitable purposes amounts to £4,631,144 (31 March 2011 £2,554,352) as set out below.

Land and Infrastructure Vehicles Equipment Total Buildings £ £ £ £ £ Cost At 1 April 2011 1,937,412 567,431 22,499 315,350 2,842,692 Additions 1,549,933 628,893 (890) - 2,177,936 At 31 March 2012 3,487,345 1,196,324 21,609 315,350 5,020,628

Depreciation At 1 April 2011 27,658 166,861 2,400 91,421 288,340 Charge for year 27,653 20,253 5,025 48,213 101,144 At 31 March 2012 55,311 187,114 7,425 139,634 389,484

Net book value At 31 March 2012 3,432,034 1,009,210 14,184 175,716 4,631,144

At 31 March 2011 1,909,754 400,570 20,099 223,929 2,554,352

10. Fixed Asset Investments The investments are held in the City of London Corporation Charities Pool as a registered UK charity with the Charities Commission (charity number 1021138) and are used internally by the City of London Corporation as a Unit trust. The value of investments held by the charity is as follows:

Designated 2012 2011 Fund £ £ £ Market Value 1 April 7,392 7,392 7,104 Gain for the year 217 217 288 Market Value 31 March 7,609 7,609 7,392

Cost 31 March 1,202 1,202 1,202

The modest increase in the market value of the investments held in the Charities Pool reflects the relative outperformance achieved by the Fund Manager compared to the market returns, due mainly to favourable stock selection. The Charities Pool is a UK registered unit trust.

PageA3-21 80 EPPING FOREST Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

11. Debtors Debtors consist of amounts owing to the charity due within one year. The debtors figure consists of the following amounts:

2012 2011 £ £ Rental Debtors 17,531 32,720 Other Debtors 66,550 251,069 Payments in Advance 38,089 42,237 Recoverable VAT 42,273 55,045 Total 164,443 381,071

12. Creditors: due within one year The creditors figure consists of the following amounts:

2012 2011 £ £ Trade Creditors 19,005 100,376 Accruals 195,616 295,113 Other Creditors 20,715 8,033 Receipts In Advance 53,782 48,719 Total 289,118 452,241

13. Creditors: due after more than one year These consist of rent deposits held on behalf of the tenants. These deposits are refundable upon either the expiry of the term of the lease, or vacant possession of the premises.

2012 2011 £ £ Sundry Deposits 62,250 59,250 Total 62,250 59,250

PageA3-22 81 EPPING FOREST Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

14. Movement of funds during the year to 31 March 2012

Net Revaluation Balance at Balance at 1 incoming/ of 31 March April 2011 (outgoing) investments 2012 resources £ £ £ £ Unrestricted Funds General Funds ------Designated Funds Tangible Fixed Assets 2,554,352 2,076,792 - 4,631,144 Heritage Assets - 115,600 - 115,600 Capital Fund 901,930 (93,626) - 808,304 Sports Ground Deposit 2,790 - 78 2,868 Golf Course Machinery Fund 55,716 (28,000) - 27,716 (CGC) E.N. Buxton Knighton Wood 4,598 - 135 4,732 G.Gardner Bequest 143 - 4 148 Heritage Lottery Fund Match 318,447 (186,172) - 132,275 Funding Green Arc Funding 39,089 (1,550) - 37,539 Grazing Account - 17,577 - 17,577 3,877,065 1,900,621 217 5,777,903

Total Unrestricted Funds 3,877,065 1,900,621 217 5,777,903 Restricted Funds Tubney Trust - 101,210 - 101,210 City Bridge Trust 28,908 28,908 Total Restricted Funds - 130,118 - 130,118

Total Funds 3,877,065 2,030,739 217 5,908,021

Notes to the funds Unrestricted funds 1) Accumulated fund The accumulated fund has a balance of nil as the operating deficit of the charity is financed by the City of London Corporation.

PageA3 - 23 82 EPPING FOREST Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

Notes to the funds (continued)

Unrestricted Designated Funds 2) Sports Grounds deposit A sum of money was invested in 1968 relating to the Sports Ground.

3) Golf Course machinery fund The purpose of this fund is to provide for the future replacement of plant and equipment at Chingford Golf Course. During 2011/12, £28,000 was used to fund the purchase of new equipment. No purchases were made during 2010/11.

4) E.N. Buxton Knighton Wood A gift was made in 1930 to be spent on maintaining the beauty of Knighton Wood. The unused balance of the fund was invested in 1931 for future use.

5) G. Gardner bequest £50 was received in 1933 for the erection of seats fronting the drive, Snaresbrook. The seats were erected at a cost of £35 and the balance of the legacy was invested for future use.

6) Heritage Lottery Fund Epping Forest was awarded a £4.76m Stage 3 grant by Heritage Lottery Fund in March 2009, towards the £6.8m cost of the ‘Branching Out’ project. The fund is used to finance the costs of the project that are not met by the grant and are to be provided by Epping Forest.

7) Capital fund The Epping Forest capital fund was established under the Epping Forest and Open Spaces Act 1878. The fund finances the purchase, construction, or repair of Forest buildings and can also be used to purchase further charitable land. The income of the fund is comprised of income from the sale of buildings and by any contribution the City of London Corporation may wish to make to the fund.

8) Green Arc Funding The Green Arc Partnership takes a strategic view of future ‘green’ infrastructure, principally the provision of further public open space in London’s peri-urban fringe and metropolitan green belt.

9) Grazing Account The purpose of this fund is to provide for the future purchase of cattle.

10) Tangible Fixed assets Land and associated buildings acquired prior to 1 April 2009 are considered to be heritage assets. They are included as fixed assets at historic cost, less provision for depreciation and any impairment. The net book value of tangible fixed assets at 31 March 2012 was £4,631,144 and is represented by a designated income fund.

11) Heritage assets Additions made to heritage land or buildings.

PageA3 - 24 83 EPPING FOREST Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

Notes to the funds (continued)

Restricted funds 12) ‘Branching Out’ Project – Tubney Trust A contribution of £171,301 was received from the Tubney Trust towards the cost of the ‘Branching Out’ project. £70,091 was utilised in 2011/12.

13) City Bridge Trust Funding from the City Bridge Trust to provide ed ucational and biodiversity services to support communities within the Greater London area.

15. Pensions The triennial valuation undertaken as at 31 March 2010 revealed a reduced funding level of 86% (from 87% in 2007). Following this valuation, the contribution rates to be applied for 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14 are 17.5%.

In 2010/11, the total employer’s contributions to the pension fund for staff employed on City’s Cash activities (including Epping Forest) were £6.0m amounting to 17.5% of pensionable pay. The figures for 2010/11 were £6.5m and 18.5% of pensionable pay.

Although the Pension Fund is a defined benefit scheme, for the purpose of FRS17 City’s Cash (and therefore Epping Forest) is unable to identify its share of the underlying assets and liabilities. Consequently the pension arrangements are treated as a defined contributions scheme in the City’s Cash and these accounts. The deficit of the scheme calculated in accordance with FRS17 by independent consulting actuaries at 31 March 2012 is £351m (2010/11 £188m).

16. Related Party Transactions The following disclosures are made in recognition of the principles underlying Financial Reporting Standard 8 concerning related party transactions.

The City of London Corporation as well as being the Trustee also provides management, surveying and administrative services for the charity. The costs incurred by the City of London Corporation in providing these services are charged to the charity. The City of London Corporation also provides banking services, allocating all transactions to the charity at cost and crediting or charging interest at a commercial rate. The cost of these services is set out in the Statement of Financial Activities under “Resources expended” and an explanation of these services is set out in note 6 for support costs of £905,161. The City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash meets the deficit on running expenses of the charity. This amounted to £4,313,121 as shown in note 5 to the financial statements.

The City of London Corporation is also the Trustee of a number of other charitable Trusts, with the exception of the City Bridge Trust (charity number 1035628), these Trusts do not undertake transactions with Epping Forest. A full list of other charitable Trusts of which the City of London Corporation is Trustee is available on application to the Chamberlain of the City of London.

PageA3 - 25 84 EPPING FOREST Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

16. Related Party Transactions (continued)

The Charities Pool is an investment mechanism operating in a similar way to a unit trust. It enables the City of London to "pool” small charitable investments together and consequently obtain better returns than would be the case if investments were made individually.

• Members sign a declaration agreeing to abide by the City of London Corporation’s code of conduct. • A register of interests is maintained. • Pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests are declared during meetings. • Members do not participate in decisions where they have an interest.

There are corresponding arrangements for staff to recognise interests and avoid possible conflicts of those interests. In this way, as a matter of policy and procedure, the City Corporation ensures that Members and officers do not exercise control over decisions in which they have an interest. There are no material transactions with organisations related by virtue of Members and officers interests which require separate reporting. Transactions are undertaken by the Trust on a normal commercial basis.

PageA3 - 26 85 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 86 Agenda Item 10

Committee(s): Date(s): Item no. Epping Forest and Commons 10 September 2012 Subject: Public Consultation by Epping Forest District Council on the introduction of three Dog Control Orders on public open space, currently including Epping Forest Land Report of: For Decision Superintendent of Epping Forest SEF 25/12

Summary

This report informs your Committee of proposals by Epping Forest District Council, whose jurisdiction includes 68.5% of Forest Land, to introduce three of the potential five Dog Control Orders on public open spaces, including Epping Forest Land, for the control of dog fouling; the placing of dogs on leads when directed and regulation on the maximum numbers of dogs each person can have in their control. The Epping Forest Acts of 1878 and 1880, are silent on the role of dog walking in public recreation, however, the law recognises that dogs are a ‘natural accompaniment’ to walking in public places. Dog walking at Epping Forest accounts for 860,000 visits, which represents some 20% of all 4.3 million visits, which is possibly an underestimate when compared to national surveys which suggest dog walking accounts for up to 51% of all visits. Some 191 dog-related incidents were reported at Epping Forest during 2011/12. This report recommends that support for the proposed Dog Control Orders with a recommended restriction of a maximum 4 dogs per person would be beneficial to the improved public enjoyment of all open spaces in Epping Forest. These Dog Control Orders would complement existing Epping Forest byelaws and add additional new offences, which could be enforced by your Officers. Recommendations I recommend that the Superintendent of Epping Forest be authorised to respond to the Epping Forest District Council’s consultation on Dog Control Orders expressing the City’s support for their introduction on Forest Land, particularly to:

a) support a Dog Control Order to control dog fouling over the whole of the Epping Forest district, including City of London Epping Forest land,

Page 87 making it an offence to fail to pick up dog faeces deposited on any public land.

b) support a Dog Control Order that allows an authorised officer to request that a dog to be put on a leash on any public land in Epping Forest district, including City of London Epping Forest land, but decline to recommend a leash length.

c) support a Dog Control Order with Epping Forest district, including City of London Epping Forest land, that restricts the number of dogs a person can have in their control on any public land to four.

Main Report

Background 1. Sections 7(1) and 9 of the Epping Forest Act 1878 extend a clear statutory right for the public to use Epping Forest as an open space for recreation and enjoyment. Dogs are generally accepted in law as a ‘natural accompaniment’ to walkers, provided they are kept under control. While the Epping Forest Act 1878 does not refer specifically to dogs, byelaws can (and have) been made under section 36 to control dogs on Forest Land.

2. The Epping Forest Visitor Surveys for 2010 and 2011 calculate that Epping Forest receives 860,000 or 20% of all visits by dog walkers each year, compared to overall visits totalling 4.3 million per year. This is lower than the national average for dog walking visits to Open Spaces which accounts for 51% of all walks in open spaces (Forestry Commission 2012). This difference may reflect the general survey difficulties of intercepting visitors on such a large site and in particular the timings of the current Epping Forest survey work which may undercount early morning and late evening dog walking.

3. A number of surveys have also recognised that dog walking can have physical, psychological and social benefits for dog walkers and indeed dogs. There has been little companion research around the impact of the fear of harassment by uncontrolled dogs that may restrict public enjoyment of open spaces. Dogs were regularly cited in the 8% of nuisance related concerns raised by Epping Forest Visitor Survey questions, this figure is markedly lower than the 2010 figure of 20%

4. There were 191 dog-related incidents reported to the Epping Forest Conservators during the 2011/12 financial year, including 21 dog attacks on members of the public; 47 dog attacks on other dogs; 10 dog attacks on

Page 88 other animals, principally horses, together with a further 113 incidents of dogs not being under effective control.

5. Dog walking can also conflict with Epping Forest’s conservation management responsibilities. Epping Forest’s conservation designation as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (4268.16 acres – 70%), and Special Area of Conservation (3964.35 acres – 65%) place responsibilities on the Conservators to positively manage the Forest for species and the habitat interest. Conversely, uncontrolled dog walking can disturb ground nesting birds; disturb wildlife especially deer, sometimes resulting in Deer Vehicle Collisions, while dog faeces and urine are a major source of nutrient enrichment in soils.

6. Your Committee of 10 May 2004 approved the Epping Forest Management Plan 2004 – 2010. That document sets out broad principles by which the Conservators intend to manage the sometimes contradictory pressures arising from its six statutory responsibilities and the conflicts that inevitably arise from shared public use of open spaces. Greater emphasis will be placed on the management of dog-related matters in the new Management Plan.

7. The continuing popularity of Epping Forest with dog walkers provides a real challenge in managing the impacts of dogs on Forest Land. In 2009 and following consultation with visitors, the site introduced a ‘PAWS in the Forest’ education-based scheme designed to promote responsible dog ownership in Epping Forest and a dedicated forum for dog walkers. More recently the Open Spaces Committee Dog Policy and Kennel Club Agreement, adopted by your Committee on 9 May 2011, has strengthened the City’s overall commitment to healthy exercise and good behaviour for dogs and their owners.

8. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 introduced powers for Primary Authorities to make Dog Control Orders(DCOs). The Common Council of the City of London was designated as a Secondary Authority from 31st May 2012 in its open spaces outside the City. This enables it to make DCOs where the relevant Primary Authority has not already made an Order in respect of the same offence on the same land.

9. As outlined in Appendix 2, a number of Primary Authorities have implemented DCOs affecting Forest Land. The London Boroughs of Newham (LBN), Redbridge (LBR) and Waltham Forest (LBWF) have all introduced DCOs for public open space in their jurisdiction. The LBN 2010 and 2011 DCOs cover Forest Land at Manor and Wanstead Flats, while the LBR 2010 DCOs include all Forest Land from Wanstead Flats to

Page 89 Woodford Green. The LBWF 2006 DCOs have traditionally interpreted their extent as not applying to Forest Land, even though their core ‘public open space’ description appears to include Epping Forest land.

10. In 1998 Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) designated the whole of the district, with the exception of Epping Forest Land under the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996, making dog fouling an offence.

Current Position 11. This report is necessary to consider the City of London’s response to a public consultation on the introduction of selected DCO’s by Epping Forest District Council. The DCOs as proposed by EFDC would complement existing Epping Forest byelaws and add additional new offences that would address widespread concerns expressed by Epping Forest visitors.

12. While the 1980 Epping Forest Byelaws contain restrictions around effective control; racing or training dogs and the muzzling of greyhounds and whippets, the Byelaws have not kept pace with the public mood on the management of dogs and do not currently include penalties for fouling; failing to pick up faeces or restricting the number of dogs under an individual’s control.

13. The potential for utilising DCOs in the Epping Forest District Council area was reported to the Council’s Cabinet (Report reference: C-073-2011/12) on 23 April 2012 after the possibility of introducing DCOs was raised by the City of London through the Local Strategic Partnership’s Community Safety Partnership with regard to public land in the District Council’s control.

14. The proposed dog fouling DCO would re-designate the whole district, making it an offence for a person to permit a dog in their control to foul and fail to remove faeces forthwith, from any public land in the whole of the district, including land owned by the City of London.

15. After consultation with the City of London, council officers also recommended that a DCO be considered to allow an authorised officer to request a dog to be put on a lead and limit the number of dogs that a person may take onto public land.

16. Primary Authorities can enforce their own DCOs. Secondary Authorities can enforce their own DCOs, and those made by the Primary Authority. Enforcement is by authorised officers – which means authorised employees, PCSOs and other persons authorised under arrangements made with the Authority.

Page 90 17. Following a decision by its Cabinet on 23 April 2012 Epping Forest District Council proposes to use its primary authority powers to introduce three DCOs making it an offence for a person in charge of a dog to:-

17.1. fail to remove dog faeces deposited on any public land within the district;

17.2. fail to put a dog on a lead when directed to do so by an authorised officer, on any public land within the district;

17.3. fail to limit the number of dogs which a person may take onto public land within the district to four dogs.

18. The Authority is currently consulting on the proposed orders for a 2 month period commencing on 2 August 2012 and ending on 2 October 2012. All responses to the consultation will be considered by District Councillors before any final decision on the proposed DCOs are made.

Options 19. Option 1 . To request that Epping Forest District Council restricts its description of public open space to exclude Epping Forest Land, allowing the Common Council as a Secondary Authority to make its own DCOs.

20. Option 2 . To support Epping Forest District Council’s proposals for the introduction of DCOs on all public open space including Epping Forest Land. These DCOs would complement existing Epping Forest byelaws and add additional new offences. The use of Fixed Penalty Notices may also help to reduce the number of dog related incidents.

Proposals 21. It is recommended that Option 2 is the most appropriate for Epping Forest. The DCO relating to direction that dogs should be put on a leash also includes provision to specify a leash length. The District Council has chosen not to consult on a length of leash within its DCO. The practical enforcement of lead lengths is problematic and it is recommended that the District Council is not encouraged to enforce lead length.

22. The Act provides that Orders may apply to all public land which is open to the air and to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access with or without payment. The penalty in relation to any offence under a DCO on summary conviction is a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, currently £1,000.

23. Authorised officers are also able to offer fixed penalty notices (FPNs) to any offenders as an alternative to prosecution. The level of fixed penalty

Page 91 has been set previously at £75 if paid in full within 14 days and a discounted level of £50 if paid in full in 10 days after the fixed penalty is offered. Most first time offenders will be offered the opportunity to discharge the liability for any prosecution by payment of a FPN. Officers do not offer FPN on the spot. There are no “on the spot fines”. Offenders may be issued with an “incident ticket” to record the offence but any formal prosecution or offer of an FPN will only take place from the Council Offices after the incident.

Financial and Risk Implications 24. There are no immediate costs associated with the support of the Epping Forest District Council’s DCOs. Epping Forest would expect to meet the training costs of introducing an FPN scheme on its Open Space. FPNs are payable to the Primary or Secondary Authority whose officer gave the notice.

Legal Implications 25. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 and associated regulations (Dog Control Orders (Prescribed Offences and Penalties, etc.) Regulations 2006 and the Dog Control Orders (Procedures) Regulations 2006) allow local authorities, parish councils and some other bodies to introduce DCOs. They provide for five offences to be prescribed in a Dog Control Order:

25.1. failing to remove dog faeces;

25.2. not keeping a dog on a lead;

25.3. not putting, and keeping, a dog on a lead when directed to do so by an authorised officer;

25.4. permitting a dog to enter land from which dogs are excluded;

25.5. taking more than a specified number of dogs onto land.

26. The Control of Dogs (Designation of the Common Council of the City of London as a Secondary Authority) Order 2012 came into force on 31 May 2012.

27. The landmark access case of R v Matthias (1861) held that the owner of land over which a path runs could remove ‘anything that encumbers the close, except such things as are the usual accompaniments of a large class of foot passengers, being so small and light, as neither to be a nuisance to other passengers nor injurious to the soil’.

Page 92

28. Any Authority making DCOs must be satisfied that they are justified and must be able to show that this is a necessary and proportionate response to problems caused by the activities of dogs and those in charge of them.

29. Under regulation 3 of the Dog Control Orders (Procedures) Regulations 2006, Epping Forest District Council is required to consult the City as a Secondary Authority for the area before making any DCOs. It must also publish a notice of its proposals in a local newspaper.

30. Any DCOs made by the City as a Secondary Authority would be subordinate to those made by Epping Forest District Council as a Primary Authority.

HR Implications 31. The Forest Keepers at Epping Forest currently issue summonses in the magistrates’ court for offences under the Epping Forest byelaws and the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It is proposed that they will also enforce the DCOs through the issue of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) alongside Local Authority Dog Wardens and Local Neighbourhood Policing Teams Police Community Support Officers. This will require additional enforcement training which will be the subject of a separate report to your Committee on a proposed enforcement policy for Epping Forest.

Strategic Implications 32. The effective management of dogs on Epping Forest Land through DCOs supports ‘The City Together Strategy: The Heart of a World Class City’ 2008-14 under the following theme:

32.1. protects, promotes and enhances our environment.

33. The effective management of dogs on Epping Forest Land through DCOs further supports the Open Spaces Directorate Business Plan through:

33.1. Quality. Providing safe high quality accessible Open Spaces and services in accordance with nationally recognised standards for the benefit of London and the Nation.

33.2. Inclusion. Celebrating a sense of place by involving communities in the care and management of our sites.

Page 93 Conclusion 34. Dog walking is undoubtedly an important pursuit for a substantial number of visitors to Epping Forest. While the benefits of dog walking to individual visitors are very clear, a lack of effective dog control and responsibility by owners can have a detrimental impact for other Forest visitors; their dogs; wildlife and the wider environment.

35. The introduction of DCOs consistently across all public open space in Epping Forest District, including City of London Epping Forest land, would be a good example of inter-Authority cooperation and offers a real opportunity to encourage consistent and responsible dog ownership which should benefit all visitors to Epping Forest and its wider environment.

Background Papers: Public Access to Woodlands and Forests (May 2012) – Forestry Commission Report of the Director of Open Spaces – Dog Control Orders - Epping Forest and Commons Committee 9 July 2012

Appendices Appendix 1 – Epping Forest District Council Dog Orders (DCO) Consultation Appendix 2 – Existing Primary Authority Dog Control Orders coinciding with Epping Forest

Contact: Paul Thomson | [email protected] | 020 8532 5300

Page 94 Dog Control Orders (DCO) Consultation 1. Summary

Using powers under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, Epping Forest District Council is proposing to introduce three Dog Control Orders making it an offence to:-

(a) fail to remove dog faeces deposited on any public land within the district

(b) fail to put a dog on a lead when directed to do so by an authorised officer, on any public land within the district

Before commencing any further the Council is consulting on the proposed orders. Any responses to the consultation will be reported back to the District Councillors before any final decision on the proposed DCO are made.

The answers to five questions are specifically being requested (as detailed below) but any comments on the proposed DCO are welcome.

2. Background information

The issue was reported to the Council’s Cabinet (Report reference: C-073-2011/12) on 23 April 2012 after the possibility of introducing DCO was raised by the Corporation of London with regard to public land in their control. In 1998 the Council designated the whole of the district under the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996, making dog fouling an offence. The 1996 Act has a number of limitations, these include:

• the legislation does not apply to roads over 40 miles per hour and land running adjacent; • fines are set at £50 and cannot be altered; • there is no offence for offenders not to provide their details; and • most importantly, there is an exclusion for land used for agriculture or for woodland, including all land in the ownership of the Corporation of London.

The proposed dog fouling DCO would re-designate the whole district, making it an offence for a person to permit a dog in their control to foul and fail to remove faeces forthwith, from any public land in the whole of the district, including land owned by the Corporation of London.

After consultation with the Corporation of London, council officers also recommended that DCO be considered to allow an authorised officer to request a dog to be put on a lead and limit the number of dogs that a person may take onto public land.

Members decided that consultation be undertaken on the introduction of DCO as detailed above.

The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 introduced dog control offences that can be controlled by Dog Control Orders (DCO). Section 55 of the Act enables local authorities to make Orders that apply to offences aimed at the control of dogs to specified land in their area.

Under the Act the Council can authorise others to enforce its provisions. As part of the introduction of the DCO as well as authorising Environment& Neighbourhood Officers currently employed by Epping Forest District Council, it is also proposed to authorise Corporation of London Officers to carry out enforcement of DCO on their land. It is also proposed to extend the enforcement powers to Police Community Support Officers (PCSO’s) based in our district. Page 95 The Act provides that Orders may apply to all public land which is open to the air and to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access with or without payment.

The penalty in relation to any offence under a DCO on summary conviction is a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, currently £1000. The Council is also able to offer fixed penalty notices (FPN) to any offenders as an alternative to prosecution.

The level of fixed penalty has been set previously at £75 if paid in full within 14 days and a discounted level of £50 if paid in full in 10 days after the fixed penalty is offered. Most first time offenders will be offered the opportunity to discharge the liability for any prosecution by payment of a FPN. Officers do not offer FPN on the spot. There are no “on the spot fines”. Offenders may be issued with an “incident ticket” to record the offence but any formal prosecution or offer of an FPN will only take place from the office after the incident.

3. Benefits of adopting the proposed DCO

The main benefits of adopting the DCO as proposed are seen as:

• additional public land that currently has no protection from dog fouling would be covered; • the whole of the district would be covered by dog fouling control in public areas; • the implementation of DCO’s would by its very nature raise the profile of dog nuisance and promote responsible dog ownership. • the proposed DCO introduce a new power to assist enforcement officers in performing their duties safely, by enabling authorised officers to require dogs to be put on a lead; • there is the option of dealing with offences by way of fixed penalty notice (FPN), that Members have pre-determined, thus saving Court and officer time; • the number of dogs that one person can be in charge of on public land will be restricted to a reasonable number that the person in charge can effectively control.

4. Enforcement

Dog control orders will introduce a number of new offences and cover a lot more land, currently without any control. This is likely to result in more complaints that will have to be responded to by EFDC enforcement officers.

It is proposed that some of the extra demand for enforcement could be addressed by refreshing and empowering PCSOs to target these offences and greater use of Environment and Neighbourhood Officers for pre-planned operations to target priority areas. The Corporation of London also plan to use their existing enforcement officers on their land as part of their normal duties, to record and investigate breaches of orders.

There may an initial increase in enforcement work and necessity to prosecute some offenders to publicise the requirement of the orders, but it is hoped that the orders will change the moral landscape and make it less acceptable for the few irresponsible dog owners to allow dogs in their control to continue with activities which the orders seek to control.

5. Procedure for making DCO

The Dog Control Orders (Procedures) Regulations 2006 set out how DCO shall be introduced.

Before making a DCO the authority shall:

• consult upon its proposals to make an order by publishing a notice of the proposal in a local newspaper circulating in the area in which the order would apply is situated; • consult every other authority with powers under Section 55 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, which for EFDC means all Parish and Town Councils; and

Page 96 • where all or part of the land in respect of which the proposed order would apply is access land then we are required to consult with the Access Authority for that land, the Local Access Forum for that land and the Countryside Agency, now Natural England.

In addition, it is proposed to include the Lea Valley Regional Park Authority (as a major land owner) in the consultation and to consult with residents via the Council’s website.

The notice referred to above shall identify the land, summarise the Order, state where any maps identifying the land can be viewed, state the period in which representations shall be made which should not be less that 28 days and state the address/e-mail where representations can be made. The Council must then (whilst having regard to any representation made) decide to proceed with the making of the orders.

At least seven days before any Dog Control Order comes into force, the Council shall:

• where practicable place signs summarising the Order in conspicuous positions on or near land where the Order applies; • publish in a local newspaper in the area where the Order applies a notice that the order has been made and stating the place where it may be inspected or copies obtained; • make available the information on the Councils website; • send copies of the information to the Parish and Town Councils; and • send copies of the information to the Access Authority, Access Forum and Natural England.

The DCO is then comes into force at least fourteen days after it is made.

Following the consultation process officers will bring another report back to Cabinet so that members can take into consideration it’s results and also to consider extending the powers of enforcement to officers of the Corporation of London and PCSO’s.

As the proposed orders will cover the whole of the district, it is not deemed practical to place signs across the whole of the district. However any orders will be clearly advertised in a local newspaper, council publications (as opportunities arise) and the council’s website. The Corporation of London will also advertise any DCO that are adopted.

6. Additional background information:

• Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 • Dog Control Orders (Prescribed Offences and Penalties, etc) Regulations 2006 • Dog Control Orders (Guidance on Sections 55 to 67 of the Clean Neighbourhoods • and Environment Act 2005) DEFRA 2006 • Local Environmental Enforcement (Guidance on the use of fixed penalty notices) DEFRA 2007 • Dog Fouling and the Law (A Guide for the Public) ENCAMS 2006

Page 97 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 98 Appendix 2 – Existing Primary Authority Dog Control Orders coinciding with Epping Forest

London Borough of Waltham Forest Orders started 8 th Nov 2006 (Applies to all public open space in the Borough. The applicability of the DCO to Epping Forest land is currently under discussion with LBWF Officers.)

Fouling of land by dogs order. To include all roads, footways, footpaths, alleyways and grass verges. To also include a list of named locations which includes recreation grounds, play areas, formal gardens, cemeteries and any other land that is open to the air and to which the public are entitled to have access(with or without payment).

Dogs on lead (not more than 8mtrs in length) order. To include all roads, footways, footpaths, alleyways and grass verges. To also include a list of named locations which includes recreation grounds, play areas, formal gardens, cemeteries.

Dogs on lead by direction of an authorised officer(not more than 8mtrs in length) order. To include all roads, footways, footpaths, alleyways and grass verges. To also include a list of named locations which includes recreation grounds, play areas, formal gardens, cemeteries

Dogs specified number any one person can be in charge of at any one time order. To include all roads, footways, footpaths, alleyways and grass verges. To also include a list of named locations which includes recreation grounds, play areas, formal gardens, cemeteries and “any other land that is open to the air and to which the public are entitled to have access(with or without payment)”.

Dog exclusion order Dogs are totally excluded from a list of locations including playing fields, playgrounds, town centre gardens, putting greens, bowling greens, parks and tennis courts.

London Borough of Redbridge Orders started 14 th July 2010 (Applies to Forest Land.)

Fouling of land by dogs order. Any land that is open to the air and to which the public are entitled to have access(with or without payment) within the London Borough of Redbridge.

Page 99 Dogs on lead order. To include all roads, footways, footpaths, alleyways and grass verges within the London Borough of Redbridge.

Dogs on lead by direction of an authorised officer order. To include a list of named locations which includes recreation grounds, play areas, formal gardens, parks and cemeteries.

Dog exclusion order This order will apply to the Ilford War Memorial Gardens, Eastern Avenue, Ilford, IG2 7RJ, and all children’s play areas, children’s playgrounds and fenced sports areas, owned, managed or maintained by the London Borough of Redbridge.

Dogs specified number any one person can be in charge of at any one time. No order was put in place so therefore no restriction on numbers.

London Borough of Newham Orders started 2010 but were amended and re-started 3 rd May 2011 (Applies to Forest Land.)

Fouling of land by dogs order. All land which is: (i) open to the air (which includes land that is covered but open to the air on at least one side); irrespective of ownership and (ii) to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access (with or without payment) within the London Borough of Newham, irrespective of ownership This includes all parks and open spaces, all children’s play areas; all open air communal spaces within housing estates, all residential and commercial car parks within London Borough of Newham, irrespective of ownership.

Dogs on lead order. All car park areas that are: (i) open to the air (which includes land that is covered but open to the air on at least one side) irrespective of ownership; and (ii) to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access (with or without payment) within the London Borough of Newham, irrespective of ownership.

Page 100 Dogs on lead by direction of an authorised officer order. All land which is: (i) open to the air (which includes land that is covered but open to the air on at least one side); irrespective of ownership and (ii) to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access (with or without payment) within the London Borough of Newham, irrespective of ownership This includes all parks and open spaces, all children’s play areas; all open air communal spaces within housing estates, all residential and commercial car parks within London Borough of Newham, irrespective of ownership.

Dog exclusion order All children's play areas that are: (i) open to the air (which includes land that is covered but open to the air on at least one side) irrespective of ownership; and (ii) to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access (with or without payment) within the London Borough of Newham, irrespective of ownership. - All fenced sports areas that are: (i) open to the air (which includes land that is covered but open to the air on at least one side) irrespective of ownership; and (ii) to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access (with or without payment) within the London Borough of Newham, irrespective of ownership.

Dogs specified number any one person can be in charge of at any one time. All land which is: (i) open to the air (which includes land that is covered but open to the air on at least one side); irrespective of ownership and (ii) to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access (with or without payment) within the London Borough of Newham, irrespective of ownership This includes all parks and open spaces, all children’s play areas; all open air communal spaces within housing estates, all residential and commercial car parks within London Borough of Newham, irrespective of ownership. The Order makes it an offence for a person to be in charge of more than four dogs on any land to which the Order applies.

Page 101 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 102 Agenda Item 11

Committee(s): Date(s): Item no. Epping Forest and Commons 10 September 2012 Subject: Public Grant of Licence to London Borough of Newham for a Public Fireworks Display Report of: For Decision Superintendent of Epping Forest SEF 26/12

Summary

This report seeks your Committee’s approval for the grant of a licence for a fee of £5,000 to the London Borough of Newham to stage a public Fireworks Display on Sunday 4 November 2012 at the Wanstead Flats Events Area adjacent to Centre Road. Your Committee has previously supported requests by the London Borough of Newham to stage a free public fireworks display on Wanstead Flats for the last six years. The 2008, 2009 and 2010 displays were preceded by heavy rain and were poorly attended. The displays in 2006, 2007 and 2011 saw in excess of 20,000 visitors each year and received widespread community support. The London Borough of Newham has agreed to indemnify the event for an unlimited amount at £10 million per claim and provide a deposit of £5,000 to cover any damage to Wanstead Flats, through footfall and use of contractors’ motorised vehicles. Restrictions placed on bonfires will minimise the release of dioxins and particulate pollution into this Clean Air Zone. Given the significant shortage of public open space in the London Borough of Newham, Wanstead Flats offers an ideal location for firework displays and facilitates the staging of a significant public event on Forest Land.

Recommendations I recommend that you i. approve the grant of a licence to the London Borough of Newham for a fee of £5,000 plus a refundable deposit of £5,000 to enable it to stage a public fireworks event on Wanstead Flats on the 4 November 2012 ii. delegate authority to the Superintendent of Epping Forest in consultation with the City Surveyor and the Comptroller & City Solicitor to determine appropriate terms and the completion of any necessary documentation iii. consent to the making of fires (for the purposes of lighting fireworks as part of the Firework Display) pursuant to Byelaw 3.6 of the Epping Forest Byelaws 1980) Page 103 iv. consent to the use of vehicles required in connection with the Firework Display pursuant to Byelaw 3.11 of the Epping Forest Byelaws 1980.

Main Report

Background 1. Since 2006, your Committee has given permission to the London Borough of Newham to stage a free public fireworks display on Wanstead Flats. In 2006, the event had 20,000 visitors, in 2007 the event attracted 23,000 visitors, but sadly in 2008, the event only attracted 4,000 visitors due to very poor weather. 2009 again saw bad weather but with an attendance of 10,000. 2010 saw bad weather prior to the event but on the day 12,000 attended the display. Almost 30,000 attended the 2011 display despite some rain on the day.

2. Following approval given by your Committee on 11 January 2010, together with a Legislative Reform (Epping Forest) Order 2011 and planning consent by the LBR, the Metropolitan Police will occupy the 8 acres of Events Area site for 90 days between 23 June and 20 September during the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games to provide a Muster, Briefing and Deployment Centre (MBDC) for Olympic security covering East London.

Current Position 3. The London Borough of Newham has approached the City, to seek permission to stage a free public fireworks display on Wanstead Flats on the 4 November 2012. An experienced Firework Display Contractor - Pains Fireworks – has been commissioned to provide the public display.

4. Some changes to the site plan have been proposed which will ensure that the ‘fallout’ from the display is contained within the firing area and will not affect the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) area to the north of the site. It has also been necessary to make some changes to the public viewing area, to prevent damage to any reinstatement works necessary after the Metropolitan Police occupation of the site. The normally triangular spectator area above Sidney Road has been broadened to extend across the front of Jubilee Pond bund. See Appendix 1.

5. The event will be aimed specifically at the residents of the London Borough of Newham and London Borough of Redbridge. The timing of the event will be from 18:30 to 20:30 hours with the display scheduled to last for 20 minutes between 19:50 and 20:10 hours.

6. This report is necessary to secure your Committee’s approval for the event under the draft terms which have been negotiated with the London Page 104 Borough of Newham, on the basis of the provisions outlined in Appendix 2.

7. The Wanstead Flats Playing Fields Committee has been consulted in the past on the staging of this event and has not raised any objections to the event being held.

Proposals 8. It is proposed that the London Borough of Newham be granted a licence at a fee of £5,000 and on suitable terms permitting it to stage a public fireworks display at Wanstead Flats free of charge on the 4 November 2012, and subject to lodging a refundable deposit of £5,000 for any making good works arising from the event.

Strategic Implications 9. The proposal, if approved, meets The City Together Strategy: the Heart of a World Class City 2008-14 vision of a World Class City and, specifically; 9.1. ‘a World Class City, which is vibrant and culturally rich by supporting and promoting the City as a cultural asset and to encourage greater vibrancy and diversity in cultural and leisure activities.

9.2. ‘a World Class City, which is safer and stronger by supporting community cohesion such that everybody feels able to contribute.

10. The proposal would also support the following aim of the Open Spaces Business Plan; 10.1. Providing safe, high quality, free, accessible open spaces and services in accordance with nationally recognised standards for the benefit of London and the Nation.

Implications Financial and Risk Implications 11. All costs incurred by Epping Forest in relation to the proposed fireworks display will be covered by the £5,000 licence fee from London Borough of Newham.

12. The London Borough of Newham will agree to indemnify the City of London for an unlimited amount and the minimum level of Public Liability Insurance cover should be £10 million for each individual claim. This threshold has been set in consultation with the City’s insurance section.

13. The proposed fireworks display will not interfere with the football pitches so there will be no loss of booking income. Page 105 Legal Implications 14. Under section 76(1) (c) of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907 and section 4 of the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1933, the City Corporation has the power to provide any apparatus for games and recreations on Epping Forest, and charge for the use thereof, or let the right of providing any such apparatus for any term not exceeding three years to any person.

15. The Licensing Act 2003 obliges organisers to secure a premises licence from the local Licensing Authority in order to stage the concert.

16. In addition to our licence, the London Borough of Newham will apply for a Public Fireworks Display Licence.

17. Epping Forest Byelaws 1980 3(6) prohibits the ‘making fires of any substance’ without consent. Consent is therefore required to ensure that the detonation of fireworks on Forest Land (which would contravene the Byelaw without consent) may lawfully take place.

18. Epping Forest Byelaws 1980 3(11) prohibits driving of vehicles on most areas of Forest Land without consent. Consent is therefore required to enable vehicles to be used in connection with the event.

19. If this Licence is granted, a formal licence will be issued with advice from the Comptroller and City Solicitor’s Department.

20. The London Borough of Newham will also undertake prior notice of the event to the relevant London Borough Emergency Planning Units in line with their responsibility under the Civil Contingency Act 2004.

Corporate Property Implications 21. The City has permitted the London Borough of Newham’s public fireworks display in previous years, and it should continue to ensure that all of the costs associated with the event including making good, are met by the London Borough of Newham, and that suitable terms are in place to regulate the use.

22. This year additional care will be required in order that the fireworks event does not cause damage to the newly seeded area of Wanstead Flats following the removal of the Police muster centre which was sited there for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, otherwise it might compromise the indemnity that the City obtained for making good.

Sustainability Implications 23. Whilst on and around Bonfire Night (5 November), there is often a noticeable increase in air pollution from particulates and dioxins, given the transient nature of this event the environmental impacts have been minimised by the ban of a traditional bonfire. Page 106 Conclusion 24. The London Borough of Newham has previous experience of holding public firework displays similar to this proposal. The production company (Pains fireworks) have considerable experience of running major events.

25. Given the significant shortage of public open space in the London Borough of Newham, Wanstead Flats offers an ideal location for firework displays and facilitates the staging of a significant public event on Forest Land.

Appendices Appendix 1: Site plan 2012 Appendix 2: London Borough of Newham Licence Conditions

Contact: Keith French | [email protected] | 020 8532 5310

Page 107 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 108

(

)

- $

6 *

)

4 - R

* -

)

' '

B F

B &

/ T

PRODUCTION

BRACED 1 in 3 in 1 BRACED E

HERAS FENCING HERAS C

3 S

A T

T T

s L

T T

e I

r N A

t N

a G E

G E

G m E

r T q

e ,

7 d

u N a

R # D

T I L n 9 S e k I r K " e J & s # t O H l s u o a .n r L o a m C a D C / i M d N n O a TI C MA OR

INF

0 t

o T

A E R A G

3 I

i R N

I F

D T

E S

O C

T F

N B

W O

A s

e O

a t E

n e

m r

e A

T 0

i I 0

G ,

a N

R O

I I

7 D

S F

S N N

0 S O

D a

t e h

r s

g 4

S i a re L

C e r

A c e

e n m

A w R e o i q

T d s R

E u

a 0 B 0

H 5

a t

n h

i i

n r

e e

e t

n C

l 1

g R

i g

d E

l S

o s

s r

e e

r P

y n

S R w

k &

B R

c E

o r s

L e e

a H

t d

u e

P O W P

, 1

B L

e w o opt T io

na y g l p

a e

l n

i rim e c e

r t D

n e s

/ r

e f

r e

t en

e F e

a c

r n k

u g

G S

M H A

. #

1 6 7

)

;

E K

Page 109 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 110 Appendix 2 – London Borough of Newham Licence Draft Conditions i) The Event will be free of charge. ii) Adequate Health and Safety procedures in place that are in line with The Event Safety Guide, published by the Health and Safety Executive (document HSG195). iii) That London Borough of Newham obtains all necessary consents. iv) The London Borough of Newham will publicise the event well in advance for the benefit of local residents. v) The London Borough of Newham will provide a sufficient number of car parking marshals to manage parking, Parking Wardens to issue tickets where appropriate and provide car removal services . vi) A sweep of the Wanstead Flats will take place immediately after the display, and at dawn the next day, to ensure any unexploded fireworks are safely removed. vii) Litter picking is to take place immediately after the event and a litter pick team will be on site from dawn the next day to complete a further sweep of the entire event site, surrounding areas and car parks at Capel Road, Harrow Road, Centre Road, Aldersbrook Road and Alexandra Lake. viii) An adequate number of portable toilets are to be provided on-site. ix) A people counter will be used at all entrances to help manage crowd control and the Police will be in attendance for the duration of the event, and supported by a well-established security company. x) Erection of safety fencing around the site. xi) Event advertising in the Ilford and Newham Recorder and A3 sized handbills displayed near the vicinity of Wanstead Flats. xii) Disabled parking to be available plus designated viewing area for disabled visitors. xiii) There will be no bonfire. xiv) Any damage to Forest Land will be reinstated by the London Borough of Newham to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Epping Forest entirely at its expense. xv) The consumption of alcohol at the event will be prohibited. Alcoholic beverages will not be allowed on site and appropriate visitor checks and searches will be made on site, on arrival. Page 111 xvi) The London Borough of Newham will provide the City of London with copies of any statutory or regulatory notices made against activities associated with the event within 5 working days of receipt by the London Borough of Newham or any contractor working on its behalf. xvii) The City of London as The Conservators of Epping Forest is properly acknowledged on all promotional material. xviii) The London Borough of Newham will also undertake prior notice of the event to the relevant London Borough Emergency Planning Units in line with their responsibility under the Civil Contingency Act 2004.

Page 112 Agenda Item 12

Committee(s): Date(s): Item no. Epping Forest and Commons 10 September 2012 Subject: Public Epping Forest Woodland Planting Appeal Report of: For Decision Superintendent of Epping Forest SEF 28/12

Summary

This report seeks your approval for the establishment of a woodland habitat on up to 2.063 hectares (5.1 acres) within the latest 12.035 hectares (29.74 acres) of land acquisition at Horseshoe Hill, Upshire; subject to the election of the Senior Alderman below the Chair as Lord Mayor in November 2012, the establishment of the forthcoming Lord Mayor’s Appeal which is proposed to include an appeal for the creation of the new woodland and the receipt of funds from the appeal. A new broadleaf Forest Land planting is proposed, which is estimated to cost £115,000 in terms of land preparation; tree planting; public access works, deer protection measures and ongoing maintenance. Subject to the above provisos regarding the Lord Mayor’s Appeal, it is anticipated that £103,500 would be likely to be generated by the Appeal, with the balance likely to be secured from the England Woodland Grant Scheme Woodland Creation Grant operated by the Forestry Commission. Without the Lord Mayor’s Appeal, there would be no funds available to establish the woodland, and no means of securing the balance from the Grant Scheme. In recognition of such sponsorship it is proposed that the new wood should be known as ‘Gifford’s Wood’. Recommendations I recommend that: i. An area of up to 2.063 hectares (5.1 acres) of grassland within the recent Warlies Park acquisition is dedicated to a habitat creation scheme through woodland planting; ii. Contributions to the cost of tree planting; access paths, deer fencing and maintenance are met through the Lord Mayor’s Appeal combined with additional funding from an application for grant funding from the England Woodland Grant Scheme – Woodland Creation Grant; iii. To encourage woodland resilience and climate change adaptation some 10% of the woodland species planted would be selected from

Page 113 the Forestry Commission recommended climate change species lists; iv. The new woodland planting/Forest extension be known as ‘Gifford’s Wood’ subject to the outcome of the election of the next Lord Mayor and the success of the appeal.

Main Report

Background 1. The Arbitrators Award of 1882, which was confirmed by the Epping Forest Acts of 1878 and 1880 (as amended), established 5,530 acres of Epping Forest Land for the recreation and enjoyment of the public.

2. Since 1882, the City of London has sought to acquire additional strategically important land parcels to dedicate as Forest Land. Over the past 130 years a further 595 acres of Forest Land has been added to Epping Forest, including notable purchases at Wanstead Park (140 acres - 1880); Highams Park (30 acres - 1890) and Knighton Wood (32.5 acres - 1930). A further 720 hectares (1,779 acres) has been acquired as Buffer Land.

3. Research has demonstrated that the resilience of Forests can be increased by the expansion of native woodland to ‘buffer’ and extend habitat. Expansion is particularly important to ancient woodland and semi-natural habitats, and can help increase their resilience to climate change by reducing the impact of activities on adjacent land. Woodland expansion also provides space for wildlife to spread out from existing habitat.

Current Position 4. On the 6 July 2012, the City of London completed its latest acquisition of Forest Land with the purchase of 12.035 hectares (29.74 acres) of land at Horseshoe Hill, Upshire which formed part of the Warlies Park estate, previously owned by the late Ernest Padfield Esq.

5. In additional to wooded ‘Green Lanes’ at Sergeants Green Lane, Rugged Lane and Woodgreen Road, the acquisition is adjacent to 4.8 hectares (11.89 acres)of Oxleys Wood, which forms part of the Woodredon Buffer Land Estate and is recognised as a Local Wildlife Site.

6. Traditionally, in recognition of their existing character, the Conservators have sought to restore and manage the existing principal habitat of land acquisitions. The latest acquisition is strategically important in consolidating the Forest Land associated with adjoining ‘Green Lanes’ and providing an important ‘land bridge’ between the Buffer Land already held on the Woodredon and Warlies Park estates. However, the acquisition

Page 114 largely consists of poorly managed grassland paddocks which have little intrinsic value in their current condition.

7. This report is necessary to explore the potential for habitat creation through the proposed Lord Mayor’s Appeal and a proposed application to the England Woodland Grant Scheme.

Options 8. A number of options are available to your Committee for the future management of the Horseshoe Hill acquisition.

i. Consideration cannot be given to maintaining the current horse pasture grazing regime. Such arrangements are likely to be in conflict with the Conservator’s duty to maintain the natural aspect and are contrary to 1980 byelaw 3(14) concerning grazing by uncommonable animals.

ii. Works could be undertaken with grant support from the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme to reseed the fields to convert the current poor quality grazing paddocks into a more species rich grassland. Capital funding works would be available under the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme.

iii. The site could be allowed to revert to Forest through a process of tree colonisation known as natural regeneration. ‘Climax’ broadleaved species such as oak and hornbeam can take time to emerge as dominant species though the natural regeneration process which is often initially characterised by ‘short-lived’ tree species such as birch and willow. Without good interpretation, natural regeneration can lend the impression that land is being poorly managed or neglected.

iv. A deliberately planted Forest compartment to a detailed design could be delivered through a combination of public appeal and grant aid. The immediacy of this scheme would enable the Conservators to maximise benefits from both public appeal and current grant regimes.

Proposals 9. The option of establishing a wood through planting to a detailed design is recommended.

10. The cost of the scheme would be met by a Lord Mayor’s Appeal and an application to the England Woodland Grant Scheme, operated by the Forestry Commission. Subject to the election of the Senior Alderman below the Chair as the next Lord Mayor in October 2012, the proposed appeal will form part of the forthcoming Lord Mayor’s Appeal and in recognition of the sponsorship it is proposed that, should the appeal be

Page 115 successful, the new wood be known as ‘Gifford’s Wood’. In particular, it is proposed that:

i. Up to 2.063 hectares (5.1 acres) of grassland within the recent Warlies Park acquisition is dedicated to a habitat creation scheme through woodland planting;

ii. Contributions to the cost of tree planting; access paths; deer fencing and ongoing maintenance are met through the Lord Mayor’s Appeal and an application to the England Woodland Grant Scheme – Woodland Creation Grant;

iii. To encourage woodland resilience and climate change adaptation some 10% of the woodland species planted would be selected from forest Commission recommended resilience species list;

iv. The new woodland planting/Forest extension be known as ‘Gifford’s Wood’ subject to the outcome of the election of the next Lord Mayor and the success of the appeal.

Financial Implications 11. The planting of up to 4,642 broadleave trees across 2.063 hectares of woodland is expected to cost £115,000, of which potentially 10% of the planting and establishment costs could be met by the England Woodland Grant Scheme Woodland Creation Grant. The grant figure is expected to increase through negotiation with the Forestry Commission.

12. As woodland creation grant is claimed after planting during Winter 2013, the proposed woodland ‘footprint’ can be adapted to meet any financial shortfall associated with the appeal not realising the income projection of £105,000. Conversely, should the funding generated exceed the projection, a further site at Epping Forest could be identified. Buffer Land at Coopersale, Epping would be the most obvious expansion site.

Legal Implications 13. Section 33(1.) of the Epping Forest Acts 1878 and 1880 (as amended) – General Powers of the Conservators - includes the necessary powers to undertake tree planting, access path construction and fencing works. Sub- section (i.) includes the power ‘to plant trees and shrubs for shelter or ornament’; sub-section (iii.) includes the ‘power to make temporary inclosures for the better attainment of harvesting; planting and gravel digging’ and sub-section 33(iv.) provide the power ‘To maintain and make roads, footpaths and ways …’.

Page 116 14. Funding made available by the Woodland Creation Grant scheme, supported by Additional contribution payments for public access, on former agricultural land, would require the maintenance of the woodland for 30 years from the first payment of the grant. The Forestry Commission grant scheme will also help meet the ongoing costs of woodland maintenance.

Community Strategy & Other Significant Implications 15. The effective management of Epping Forest Land through an appeal led planting scheme supports ‘The City Together Strategy: The Heart of a World Class City’ 2008-14 under the following theme:

i. protects, promotes and enhances our environment.

16. The effective management of Epping Forest Land through an appeal led planting scheme further supports the Open Spaces Directorate Business Plan through:

i. Quality. Providing safe high quality accessible Open Spaces and services in accordance with nationally recognised standards for the benefit of London and the Nation;

ii. Inclusion. Celebrating a sense of place by involving communities in the care and management of our sites.

Conclusion 17. The opportunity provided by the proposed Lord Mayor’s Appeal to expand tree cover at Epping Forest through the dedication of a new woodland offers the opportunity to convert a significant parcel of unremarkable grassland into valuable Forest habitat which will yield important public access and long term wildlife benefits.

Contact: Paul Thomson | [email protected] | 020 8532 5300

Page 117 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 118 Agenda Item 13

Committee(s): Date(s): Item no. Epping Forest and Commons 10 September 2012 Subject: Public English Woodland Grant Scheme application for the management of deer and woodlands in the Epping Forest Buffer Land Estate. Report of: For Decision Superintendent of Epping Forest SEF 30-12

Summary

This report informs your Committee of the need to both improve the condition of Buffer Land woodlands and to bring local deer populations, which continue to damage the woodlands, under effective control. The report further seeks your approval to bring into positive and sustainable management a total 75 Buffer Land woods covering 177.46 hectares (438.33 acres) contained within the 735 hectare Buffer Land estate, through an application to the England Woodland Grant Scheme for some £122,000 over a period of 5 years. Since the first significant acquisition of Buffer Land by your Committee in 1986, the management focus has been to convert much of the farmed estate to permanent grassland yielding landscape and biodiversity benefits. This necessary focus on arable reversion has prevented other elements of the Buffer Land estate, including its woodlands. This report highlights the importance of a sustained management approach to address deteriorating woodland condition, including the presence of Acute Oak Decline in 11 woodlands. Moreover, as previously reported to your Committee, while deer numbers in the Buffer Land have been substantially reduced from a 1996 figure of 513, the population target of 200 for the 2,630 hectares (6,500 acres) area has not been achieved. Deer Impact Assessment surveys indicate that deer damage has reached critical levels in most of the Buffer Land woodlands. This report recommends a programme of sustained intervention as outlined in the Deer and Woodland Management Plans to bring the woodlands into management though advice; woodland thinning and glade management, combined with deer fencing and sustained deer culling to reduce Fallow Deer numbers to 150 across 2,630 hectares and Reeves Muntjac Deer from estimated population of 150 to less than 50. The costs of bringing the Buffer Land woodlands into management and controlling the impact of Acute Oak Decline and deer can be met by a combination of grant funding from the Forestry Commission’s England Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS) and timber sales. Together grants and sales are expected to yield an estimated income of £160,047 covering the years 2012 to 2017, while overall costs are expected to amount to £147,614. The cost of deer protection Page 119 will lead to an initial investment cost of £22,389 in the first three years which will be met by local risk, however, subject to timber prices, the entire programme should yield a surplus of £12,433 for the five year period. Approval of the EWGS agreement places no obligation on the Conservators to realise the work outlined in the application. For each financial year it is proposed to present a work programme to your Committee for approval and subsequent claim to the Forestry Commission. Recommendations I recommend that your Committee: i. Adopts the twenty year Draft Woodland Planning Grant Management Plan for the Buffer Land Woodlands to sustainably manage the Buffer Land woodland as part of the wider Buffer Land estate. ii. Adopts the five year Draft Deer Management Plan which proposes to maintain deer populations in balance with the Buffer Land woodlands and the wider countryside. iii. Approves the submission of an application for grant support to the Forestry Commission’ England Woodland Grant Scheme – Woodland Improvement Grant - to fund the cost of undertaking deer and woodland management improvements on up to 75 woodlands within the Buffer Lands between 2012-17.

Main Report

Background

1. Over the past 54 years, the City of London has strategically acquired 13 parcels of land, totalling 735 hectares (1,815.45 acres), mainly around the immediate northern boundary of Epping Forest to safeguard the context and setting of Epping Forest. Since acquisition the land parcels have been referred to as ‘Buffer Land’, coinciding with areas of the original Forest Purlieu - disafforested land adjacent to the Forest.

2. The acquisitions have largely comprised farmed estate, and with the notable exception of the Deer Sanctuary at Theydon Bois, the dual guiding management principles have been to:

a. prevent development changes that would be harmful to the Forest

b. provide complementary wildlife habitats thus facilitating the protection of the Forest’s flora and fauna. Page 120 3. By area, the Buffer Land has been traditionally assessed as comprising of 595 hectares (82.6%) of farmed estate; 50 hectares (6.9%) managed as Woodland; 45 hectares (6.3%) held as Deer Sanctuary; 30 hectares (4.1%) managed for golf. Since 1993, when much of the Woodredon and Warlies Park estate left the set-aside scheme, the management focus has been on arable reversion creating permanent grasslands through grant supported environmental land management schemes. Conversely, the many woodland components of the estate have not been managed since they were purchased.

4. Following a report commissioned from the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS) on the Buffer Land woodlands, the Buffer Land Action Plan 1998 was approved by your Committee on 13 th July 1998. The Plan outlined proposals for new plantations, woodland thinning, coppicing, selective high forest group felling and scrub management. Through this action plan new areas have been planted at Ravener’s Farm and Fitches Plantation.

5. Of all the woodland areas, the Copped Hall Estate has had the most management since World War II but, even so, relatively little since the 1960s. As a result, across the Buffer Woodland the majority of late 19 th Century established woods tend to be overstocked stands and the Ancient Semi-Natural Woodlands (ASNW) to have a predominance of overmature coppice. Poplar and conifer plantings were typically established in the 1950/60s but not maintained subsequently. Following the 1987 and 1990 storms, parts of Redoak Wood & Gaunt’s Wood were restocked and new in- field plantings established in the parkland, especially at Warlies Estate. Apart from the establishment of farm woodland plantings woodland management has been minimal.

6. A report on Deer Management in the Buffer Lands considered by your Committee on 9 July 2012 agreed that while Fallow Deer numbers have been reduced by culling from 1996 levels of 513, a suitable reduction to a target population of 200 across 2,630 hectares (6,500 acres) has not been achieved.

Current Position

7. Through the Forestry Commission’s English Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS) – Woodland Improvement Grant - Government funding is available to manage the existing woodlands, maintain the new plantations and control populations of wild deer that would otherwise damage woodland regeneration. The current budget cycle for Common Agricultural Policy which supports this grant scheme ends next year, and it is widely anticipated that in the next budget cycle funding will be more constrained.

8. Recently commissioned reports from woodland consultants R J Pass and Associates have re-evaluated the woodland within the Buffer Land estate Page 121 identifying 75 woods totalling 171.51 hectares (423.63 acres) of woodland, plantations, wooded green lanes and copses. The largest woodland is Galleyhill Wood at 37.37 hectares (92.30 acres). Galleyhill is one of six Ancient Semi-Natural Woodlands (ASNW) also comprising Griffin’s Wood; Spratt’s Hedgerow Wood (part thereof); Oxleys Wood; Redoak Wood & Gaunt’s Wood (parts thereof). In addition, Brambly Shaw and Conybury Wood are listed as being part ASNW in their Local Wildlife Site citations. The woodlands also coincide with a further 14 Local Wildlife Sites and two Conservation Areas (Upshire and Copped Hall).

9. The majority of the woods are native broadleaf and most frequently coppice with standards (e.g. Galleyhill Wood and Spratt’s Hedgerow Wood) with oak and ash commonly forming the standard species and hornbeam and hazel the coppice species. The second most common woodland is mature oak high forest (e.g. Finches Plantation). Predominately conifer woods are small and limited to Stable Shaw and Ridge Wood. Wet woodland is infrequent with Rookery Wood being the largest and largely planted with poplar. However, an important riparian zone following Cobbin’s Brook passes through several adjacent Buffer woods including Fernhall Wood and Brookmeadow Wood. Large farm woodland plantings are located at Breach Barns and Great Gregories. There are many small copses from pre 1900s to 2000, most of which can be found in Warlies Park.

10. The flora and regeneration of the woodland in general is typically poor to very poor due to browsing pressure over sustained periods, particularly by deer. However remnants of interesting and varied flora and associated fauna are present. Using a Deer Impact Assessment (DIA) methodology, assessment of the Buffer Land woodlands during 2012 revealed Activity Scores of 10 out of a maximum score of 12 and Damage Scores of 12 out of maximum score of 15. Scores in excess of 10 are described as ‘critical levels of damage, with no woodland regeneration’.

11. The major threat to the regeneration of the woods is Fallow and Reeves Muntjac deer. However, rabbits and grey squirrels also all pose a threat to the productivity and biodiversity of the woodland. A Deer Management Plan (see Appendix B) has been produced and action is proposed to increase the control of the deer.

12. There are also disease and pest problems. Trees symptomatic of Acute Oak Decline (AOD) were seen in 11 (14.7%) of the 75 Buffer Land Woods in a small proportion of the semi-mature to mature oak. AOD is a relatively new condition of oak trees in Britain involving a complex inter relationship between multiple organisations which adversely affects mature oaks. It is likely that AOD will become more widespread across the Buffer Lands woodland. Following infection with Acute Oak Decline trees can become infested with the previously rare Jewel beetle, the Two Spotted Oak Butprestid (Agricus bigguttatus ), which severely and extensively damages Page 122 timber. There are other diseases and pests threatening various tree species. Therefore, the value of the wood will only decline with time and intervention sooner rather than later is required to maximise the value of the resources.

13. The abridged long term vision for the Buffer Land Woodlands adopted by your Committee is: a. ‘To sustainably manage the Buffer Land woodlands, as part of the wider Buffer Land estate, safeguarding the rural environment of the Forest and thereby conserving it’s natural aspect, while providing complementary wildlife habitats, to enhance the protection of the Forest’s flora and fauna’.

14. The long-term policy to realise this vision is to: a. Retain and bring the woodland back into productive management through a programme of coppicing, thinning and restructuring, where applicable, in order to maximise yield and sustainability.

b. Protect and improve the biodiversity of all the Buffer Lands woodlands; giving particular attention to achieving this in both the Ancient Semi- Natural Woodland and Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites.

c. Develop uneven aged multi-storey stands leading to increased biodiversity and sustained yields.

d. Open up the existing woodland ride system and glades and, where necessary, create new rides and glades. Work towards producing a structurally more diverse ride edge both to improve access and biodiversity.

e. Produce high quality fuel wood and timber.

f. Maintain and improve the woodland value and landscape characteristics.

g. Provide public access and enjoyment.

15. The English Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS) can fund a high proportion of the costs of these works, together with the income from wood products, the management costs will largely be covered and from year 3 the works are forecasted to generate a profit.

16. Consultants, RJ Pass and Associates, have prepared a Woodland Management Plan (Appendix A) and Deer Management Plan (Appendix B), the main points of which are outlined in the proposals. The prescriptions held within these reports will be incorporated in the new Epping Forest Management Plan. Page 123

Options

17. There are a number of options available to your Committee spanning no action to intervention at the City’s sole cost. The opportunity to secure grant funding, which together with income from timber sales, will cover the entire cost of sustainably managing woods across the Buffer Land estate, proves the most cost effective option.

Proposals 18. To submit an application to the Forestry Commission for grant funding to support the cost of woodland management on the Buffer Lands. The main woodland management proposals over the next five years are:

a. Galleyhill Wood - coppicing over 9.65 hectares.

b. Spratts Hedgerow Wood – coppicing over 5.25 hectares and thinning over a further 5.62 hectares.

c. Thinning across the whole woodland area of Fernhall Wood, Conybury Wood, Oxleys Wood, Ridge Wood (Copped Hall), Red Oak and Gaunts Wood (adjacent to the Deer Sanctuary) and Stable Shaw (Woodredon).

d. Selective thin to remove oak affected by Acute Oak Decline across nearly every woodland area, this is estimated to be required on less than 10% of the oak population.

e. General ride and open space management within the woodlands and maintenance of young plantations.

19. The success of the woodland management proposals depends on controlling deer impacts. The long term policy is to maintain deer populations in balance with the woodland and the wider countryside. The deer management plan proposes to: a. Use deer fencing to protect coppice regrowth and natural regeneration.

b. Reduce the fallow deer spring population to 150 throughout the area between the Lower Forest, Epping Long Green, Galleyhill Wood and the M25.

c. Cull Reeves Muntjac deer whenever possible, reducing the estimated population from 150 to 50.

d. Continue to monitor and assess the effects of deer control through Deer Impact Assessments.

e. Improve infrastructure for deer culling and deer stalking. Page 124 20. An agreement for funding under this scheme does not oblige the agreement holder to undertake the work as funding is claimed after completing work.

21. For each financial year a work programme will be presented to the Epping Forest and Commons Committee for approval.

Corporate & Strategic Implications

22. The effective management of woodlands and deer populations within the Buffer Land estate supports ‘The City Together Strategy: The Heart of a World Class City’ 2008-14 under the following theme: • protects, promotes and enhances our environment.

23. The active management of the Buffer Lands woodlands has significant sustainability implications. This ties in to: a. the Corporate plan aims to ‘encourage sustainable practices’.

b. the Open Spaces Departmental Business Plan 2012-2015 – meeting the Department’s Environmental strategic aim and objective to ‘promote the variety of life and protect the Open Spaces for the enjoyment of future generations.’

Financial Implications

24. The habitat work on the Buffer land woodlands will be undertaken by contractors as there is no available in-house resources to undertake this work. In addition, a consultant may be required initially to manage the contractors to deliver the woodland management plan, before this responsibility is passed to the incoming Head of Operations. There will also be material costs such as fencing and equipment required for deer control. As outlined in Table 1.

25. Deer Control will continue to be delivered externally by suitably qualified stalkers. It is proposed to market test a new performance contract arrangement for deer management from 2013, which may need to include incentives for Reeves Muntjac control.

26. The costs of bringing the Buffer Land woodlands into management and controlling the impact of deer can be met by grant funding from the Forestry Commission’s England Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS) and timber sales. Together grants and sales are expected to yield an estimated income of £160,047 covering the years 2012 to 2017, while overall costs are expected to amount to £147,614, yielding a surplus of £12,433 for the five year period (See Table 1)

Page 125 27. The cost of deer protection will lead to an initial investment cost of £22,389 in the first three years which will be met by local risk, however, subject to timber prices, the entire programme should yield a surplus.

28. The EWGS scheme is funded by the Rural Development Programme for England and is administered by the Forestry Commission. This money comes from Pillar 2 of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget. The current budget cycle for CAP (2007-2013) ends next year and it is widely anticipated that in the next budget cycle funding will be significantly tighter. It is therefore advisable that an EWGS application is submitted in the current financial year to ensure we are able to access the current tranche of funding.

Table 1: Proposed Income and Expenditure 2012-17

Year Costs Income Balance for Running year Balance Grant (50%) Sales Total income

2012 - £ £ £ £ -£ -£ 13 65,530.00 41,478.00 8,364.00 49,842.00 15,688.00 15,688.00 2013 - £ £ £ £ £ -£ 14 23,067.00 21,768.00 12,301.00 34,069.00 11,002.00 4,686.00 2014 - £ £ £ £ £ -£ 15 23,163.00 20,063.00 5,771.00 25,834.00 2,671.00 2,015.00 2015 - £ £ £ £ £ £ 16 26,441.00 24,721.00 9,082.00 33,803.00 7,362.00 5,347.00 2016 - £ £ £ £ £ £ 17 9,413.00 13,715.00 2,784.00 16,499.00 7,086.00 12,433.00

Totals £ £ £ £ 147,614.00 121,745.00 38,302.00 160,047.00

Legal Implications

29. Under section 4 of the Epping Forest Act 1878, Deer on Forest Land are considered to be the property of the Conservators ‘to be preserved as objects of ornament in the Forest’. Outside the Forest, deer are wild animals, or ferae naturae under common law, and are not owned by anyone. In England and Wales, the landowner has the right to kill or take game on his or her land. The landowner may also extend authority, known as ‘permission’, to other people without restriction provided they observe the law in terms of close seasons.

30. There are 7 group Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) covering 18 Acre Wood, Conybury Wood, Galleyhill Wood, Oxleys Wood & Potkiln Wood, Red Oak & Gaunts Wood, Rookery Wood, Spratt’s Hedgerow and Warlies Park. This information is required on the Forestry Commission applications Page 126 and any proposed felling initiates a Felling Licence Application, the terms of which are specified in the funding contract.

31. TPOs are made by local planning authorities to safeguard trees of significant amenity value under the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation)(England) Regulations 2012.

Property Implications

32. If there are grant funding schemes available which can assist the City with its aims and costs to manage woodland in the way that it is now being proposed and that management regime is approved, it seems eminently sensible to make suitable funding applications provided that any qualifying criteria can be met. However, the City should also be mindful that any application for funding which may be approved should not fetter its overall ability to deal with the Buffer Land as it requires, bearing in mind that Buffer Land by definition is not subject to the same legislative requirements that are imposed on Forest and held under the provisions of the Epping Forest Acts, 1878 and 1880 (as amended).

Human Resources 33. As the contractors will be managed by the consultant, at least for the first two years, there will be minimal involvement from Epping Forest officers, except for periodic liaison with the consultant.

Sustainability 34. The active management of woodlands increases the carbon sequestration from the atmosphere compared to unmanaged woodlands helping to mitigate CO 2 emissions. This is being promoted through the UK Low Carbon Plan which has arisen from the Climate Act 2008.

Conclusion 35. The biodiversity value and wood product resource of the Buffer Lands woodlands continues to decline as these areas are left unmanaged. The Deer and Woodland Management Plans provide an opportunity to manage the impact of Acute Oak Decline; improve woodland biodiversity and return the woods to productive management through grant support from the English Woodland Grant Scheme.

36. The initial cost of contractors and consultants will be offset by the grant and income from wood products and by year 4 all costs incurred up until that time will have been met and there is estimated to be a yearly surplus of around £5,000 from year 4.

Page 127 Background Papers: ADAS report Woodland Management Plan- Buffer Land Estates Woodlands 1998 Buffer Land Action Plan

Appendices Appendix A - Woodland Management Plan and Operational Maps Appendix B - Deer Management Plan

Contact: Jeremy Dagley | [email protected] | 020 8532 5313

Page 128

WPG Management Plan

BUFFER LANDS WOODLAND

Date (from/to) May 2012 to April 2032

Date of last review [UKWAS 2.1.3]

Owner/tenant City of London, The Warren, Loughton, Essex IG10 4RW

Agent/contact Rod Pass, The Old Yard, Great Bradley Hall, Great Bradley, Newmarket, Suffolk CB8 9LT

Signed declaration n/a of tenure rights and agreements to public availability of the plan [UKWAS 1.1.3/1.1.5/2.1.2]

1 Background information

1.1 Location Nearest town, village or feature Upshire, Epping, Waltham Abbey, Harlow, Theydon Bois and Loughton Grid reference TL416007 (Oxleys Wood, central location) Total area (ha) 177.46ha

1.2 Description of the woodland(s) in the landscape The Buffer Lands comprises 735.60ha of which 177.46ha is woodland. It is located primarily on the rural valley land to the northern fringes of Epping Forest, adjacent to the M25 between the urban settlements of Waltham Abbey and Epping (see Appendix 1: Buffer and Forest Land Map plus the Boundary Map). The woodland is well dispersed across the landscape, typically linked by hedges and watercourses. The most of the woodland, along with 163.09ha of arable land plus other farmland and substantial parkland, is distributed over the three historic Estates of Copped Hall and Warlies to the north of the M25 and Woodredon split by the M25. Two woods outside these Estates and north of the M25 include Galleyhill Wood to the northwest of Aimes Green and Swaines Green to the north of Epping. There are three woods situated to the south of the M25 and east of Epping Forest: Great Gregories and Gaunt’s Wood & Red Oak Wood to the north and west of Theydon Bois respectively and North Farm to the south west of Loughton.

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 1 Page 129

Woodland Management Plan

In total there are 75 woods with Galleyhill Wood at 37.37ha being by far the largest. A further four woods are over 10ha (Redoak & Gaunt’s Wood (14.73ha), Great Gregories (14.23ha), Cobbin’s Brook Plantations (13.07ha) and Spratt’s Hedgerow Wood (10.87ha)). Nineteen are between 1ha and 10ha with the remaining 51 woods being of less than 1ha which includes 26 very small in-field copses of 0.1ha or less. Overall the average woodland size is 2.36ha.

The majority of the woods are native broadleaf and most frequently coppice with standards (e.g. Galleyhill Wood (37.37ha) and Spratt’s Hedgerow Wood (10.87ha) with oak and ash commonly forming the standard species and hornbeam and hazel the coppice species. The nsecond most common woodland is mature oak high forest (e.g. Finches Plantation (3.87ha). Predominately conifer woods are small and limited to Stable Shaw (2.86ha) and Ridge Wood (2.54ha). Wet woodland is infrequent with Rookery Wood at over 8ha being the largest and largely planted with poplar. However, an important riparian zone following Cobbin’s Brook passes through several adjacent Buffer woods including Fernhall Wood and Brookmeadow Wood. Large farm woodland plantings are located at Breach Barns (20.80ha spilt over two areas) and Great Gregories (14.23ha). There are many small copses from pre1900s to 2000, most of which can be found in Warlies Park. The compartment schedule describing the woodland, compartment map, constraints maps, woodland type maps along with Google Earth images are located in Appendix 2.

The Buffer Lands including the woodland is often visible from public roads. There are several links to Epping Forest including Woodredon Farm Lane, Warren Plantation and Bell Common Tunnel, an underpass on Woodgreen Road and the Selvage deer tunnel. Much of the Buffer Lands has permissive access as well as being generally well served by Public Rights of Ways (PROW).

1.3 History of Management The Buffer Lands woods reflect the changes and fashions in woodland management on English Estates over many centuries. The Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland (ASNW) still retain vestiges of their naturally occurring tree species, oak, ash, hazel, elm and field maple with substantial areas of hornbeam particularly in Galleyhill Wood. There are a number of woods, particularly surrounding the parklands of Copped Hall and Woodredon Park that were planted during the 18 th , 19 th and 20 th centuries for both landscape and game. These woods contain some impressive stands of oak and remnants of earlier conifer plantings, typified by a number of stands of large Corsican pine. The parkland areas are punctuated by small woodland plantings, typically of oak, covering the same time periods as well as more recent, late 20 th Century plantings.

Of all the woodland areas, the Copped Hall Estate has had the most management since WW2 but, even so, relatively little since the 1960s. As a result, across the Buffer Woodland the majority of late 19 th Century established woods tend to be overstocked stands and the ASNW to have a predominance of overmature coppice. Poplar and conifer plantings were typically established in the 1950/60s but not maintained subsequently. Following the 1987 and 1990 storms, parts of Redoak Wood & Gaunt’s Wood were restocked and new in-field plantings established in the

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 2 Page 130

Woodland Management Plan parkland, especially at Warlies Estate. Since The City of London Corporation bought much of the Buffer Land in 1992 several large native farm woodland plantings have been established and the majority of these have developed well. Otherwise, woodland management has been minimal, although some deer management has been undertaken.

2 Woodland Information

2.1 Areas and features Designated Areas Map No. In Woodland Adjacent to woodland Special areas for conservation (SACs) Special Protection Areas (SPAs) Ramsar Sites (see note on Guidance) National Nature Reserves (NNRs) Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) Other designations (e.g. National Park (NP) / World Heritage Site) Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) Constraints √ √ TPO / Conservation Area (CA) Constraints √ √ Details: Local Wildlife Sites : 14 covering 18 Acre Wood, Cobbin’s Brook, Conybury Wood, Finches Plantation, Galleyhill Wood, Green Lane & Brambly Shaw, Griffin’s Wood, Little Rookery, Oxleys Wood Complex, Redoak Wood & Gaunt’s Wood, Rookery Wood, Spratts Hedgerow Wood, Warlies Park and Swaines Green (see Appendix 3 for further details).

Tree Preservation Order : 7 covering 18 Acre Wood, Cobbin’s Brook, Conybury Wood, Galleyhill Wood, Green Lane & Brambly Shaw, Oxleys Wood Complex, Redoak Wood & Gaunt’s Wood, Rookery Wood, Spratt’s Hedgerow Wood and Warlies Park (see Appendix 4 for further details).

Conservation Area : 2 for Upshire and Copped Hall (see Appendix 5 for further details).

Brookmeadow Wood is designated as a Site of Importance for nature conservation by Essex Wildlife Trust.

Note – Designated areas are noted as appropriate in the Compartment Schedule. LIS and MAGIC searches were undertaken.

Rare and important species Map No. In Woodland Adjacent to woodland Red Data Book or BAP species Constraints √ √

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 3 Page 131

Woodland Management Plan

Rare, threatened, EPS or SAP species Constraints √ √ Details: Habitats are present that should support rare and important species, e.g. BAP species such as Turtle Dove, Great Crested Newts (GCNs) and bats species.

GCNs have been found at Fernhall Wood, Cobbin’s Pond, West Hill and the small pond area to the west of the drive at Copped Hall.

Badgers are present in Spratt’s Wood, Rookery Wood, Finches Plantation, Conybury Wood and Redoak Wood and Gaunt’s Wood.

Helleborines and Wood Vetch are present in Brambly Shaw, Alder Buckthorn in Cobbin’s Pond and Butchers Broom in Conybury Wood.

The Land Use and Ecological Survey undertaken by The City of London on the Buffer Land is located at Appendix 6. Limited information is present on the Constraints maps.

Habitats Map No. In Woodland Adjacent to woodland Ancient semi-natural woodland (ASNW) Constraints √ Other semi-natural woodland Constraints √ Plantations on ancient woodland sites (PAWS) Constraints √ Semi-natural features in PAWS √ Woodland margins and hedges Constraints √ √ Veteran and other notable trees Constraints √ √ Breeding sites Constraints √ √ Habitats of notable species √ √ Unimproved grasslands √ Rides and open ground √ √ Valuable wildlife communities √ √ Feeding area √ √ Lowland heath Peatlands Others Details: ASNW: 6 including Galleyhill Wood, Griffin’s Wood, Spratt’s Hedgerow Wood (part), Oxley Wood, Redoak Wood & Gaunt’s Wood (part) are formally designated. In addition, Brambly Shaw and Conybury Wood are listed as being part ASNW in their Local Wildlife Site citations.

PAWS: The southern-eastern side of Spratt’s Hedgerow Wood is designated as PAWS.

Other semi-natural woodland (e.g. bluebells, dog’s mercury, large old tree stumps present): 9 including, in parts, Brookmeadow Wood, Fernhall Wood, Cobbin’s Pond, Oxleys Wood Remnant, 18 Acre, Rookery Wood, Little Rookery Wood, Ridge Wood and Stableshaw Wood.

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 4 Page 132

Woodland Management Plan

Woods with particularly good nesting habitats are indicated on the constraints map.

The flora and regeneration of the woodland in general is typically poor to very poor due to browsing pressure over sustained periods, particularly by deer. However remnants of interesting and varied flora and associated fauna are present.

Water Map No. In Woodland Adjacent to woodland Watercourses Constraints √ √ Lakes Ponds Constraints √ √ Wetland habitats Constraints √ √ Details: Water features are frequent across the Buffer Land including the woodland and are shown on the constraints map. Three woods, Fernhall Wood, Rookery Wood and Stableshaw Wood are in part wet woodland. The riparian zone of Cobbins Brook is also notable.

Landscape Map No. In Woodland Adjacent to woodland Landscape designated areas Constraints √ √ Landscape features Rock exposures Historic landscapes √ √ Areas of the woodland prominent from roads √ Areas of the woodland prominent from √ settlements Details: There are two Conservation Areas (CA): Upshire CA which includes Warlies Park, Brookmeadow Wood and Fernhall Wood plus Copped Hall CA which includes Copped Hall Estate woodland. The maps for the CAs are located at Appendix 5.

Warlies Park, Copped Hall and the Woodredon Estates are notable historic landscapes as is the Deer Sanctuary on the northern margin of Redoak Wood & Gaunt’s Wood.

The majority of the woodland is prominent from roads and/or settlements with Galleyhill Wood, Copped Hall and Warlies Park being particularly remarkable.

Cultural features Map No. In Woodland Adjacent to woodland Public rights of way Constraints √ √ Prominent viewing points √ √ Existing permissive footpaths Constraints √

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 5 Page 133

Woodland Management Plan

Proposed permissive footpaths Areas managed with traditional management √ systems Details:

Public Rights of Way are as shown on the constraints map.

Prominent viewing points are located at Galleyhill Wood, Warlies Park (eastern side), Spratt’s Hedgerow Wood, Shooting Lodge Copse, Copped Hall Park, Brambly Shaw, Oxleys Wood and North Farm.

Significant permissive areas across the Buffer Land are as shown on the constraints map as is the one permissive footpath at the Copped Hall Estate.

The traditional management system of Coppice with Standards can be found in the following woodland: Galleyhill Wood, Brookmeadow Wood, Fernhall Wood, Spratt’s Hedgerow Wood, Rookery Wood, Little Rookery Wood, 18 Acre, Griffin’s Wood, Brambly Shaw & Green Lane. It is assumed that Osiers was once a traditional osier bed.

Archaeological Features Map No. In Woodland Adjacent to woodland Scheduled monument Historical feature (Inc. designed landscapes, √ √ registered parks and gardens) Other √ √

Details:

The Temple in the eastern half of Warlies Park is an unscheduled monument.

Copped Hall & Park is a Grade 2 Registered Park & Garden (English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in England Grade II* Reference GD1344 - see Appendix 7). As mentioned earlier, Warlies Park, Copped Hall and the Woodredon Estates are notable historic landscapes.

There are several heritage features in the Buffer Woodland including the osiers beds in Osiers, the narrow and sinuous shooting flight pond in Rookery Wood, the remnant pottery site in Potkiln Wood and the historic PROW - Green Lane.

There are unscheduled earthworks in all of the ASNW, PAWS and most of the other semi-natural woodland. In Brookmeadow Wood, there a leat running NE to SW across the whole woodland historically connecting Cobbins Brook to Cobbins Pond.

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 6 Page 134

Woodland Management Plan

2.2 Woodland resource characteristics

Details of the species composition and stand age are provided within the compartment schedule along with the compartment maps. The Buffer Woodland is complex with often more than one woodland type occurring within a wood. In total the Buffer Woodland is characterised by 11 woodland types which are shown on the woodland type map. The Buffer Woodland composition by woodland type (Ha and %) is summarised below:

Key Woodland Type Ha % 1 New plantation (<15 years) 8.02 4.52 2 Young plantation (<25 years) 41.24 23.24 3 Scrub / open woodland 6.67 3.76 4 Secondary woodland 5.40 3.04 5 Mature in field copse / group 1.77 1.00 6 Coppice with Standards 50.27 28.33 7 High forest (broadleaf) 38.07 21.54 8 High forest (mixed) 8.54 4.81 9 High forest (conifer) 1.72 0.97 10 Wet woodland 7.05 3.97 11 Uneven aged woodland 8.71 4.91 Total 177.46 100.00

This is useful as it clearly shows the high predominance of Coppice with Standards (28.33%) and mature, broadleaf high forest woodland (21.86%) which are priority woodland types from an ecological and economic stand point. It also highlights the young plantations (<25% years) which will require work within the first five years of the programme to ensure their on-going development. Also of note is the small percentages assigned to the other woodland types which increase their value.

Compartments are assigned to the woodland types below with a brief comment on character and work required. Table 7.2 lists compartments by work type required to be undertaken within the first five year period with suggested priority areas mentioned specifically below for key woodland types. Note that for each wood, ride works such as widening and creation of new rides would be scheduled as appropriate to coincide with the coppicing and thinning programmes.

1. New Plantations: 8.02ha <15 years of age: Warlies Estate: unnamed Cpts 10, 18 to 23, 25, 31. Raveners Strip (Cpt 36). Copped Hall North: unnamed Cpts 41 & 42. Trafalgar Wood (Cpt 55), Great Gregories (Cpt 68), North Farm: unnamed Cpts 72 & 74.

Typically, small, broadleaf amenity plantings established at wide spacing either adjacent to field boundaries or in the case of those in Warlies Park as very small in-field groups to provide screening and future landscape features. Whilst most are protected either by stock fencing or treeshelters, frequently protection is in inadequate as browsing is occurring. Maintenance and formative pruning is required in addition to improved protection.

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 7 Page 135

Woodland Management Plan

2. Young Plantations: 41.24ha <25 years of age: Breach Barns Plantations (Cpt 2), Cobbins Brook Plantations (Cpt 3), Warlies Estate: unnamed Cpts 11 & 13, Raveners Copse (Cpt 37), Middle Lincolns (Cpt 59b), Conybury Strip (Cpt 60), Brambly Shaw & Green Lane (Cpt 65b), Great Gregories (Cpt 67), North Farm (Cpts 71 & 73).

The majority of these broadleaf plantations have been established at 1100stem s/ha with oak and ash being the principal species. The exception being Cpt 65b which comprises of Asiatic elms at wider spacing. Most have developed well and will require their 1 st thinning within five years removing up to 30%. The exceptions are Cpts 11 & 13 at Warlies Park which are widely spaced already and Raveners Strip which will be delayed due to poorer establishment. Formative pruning of the best trees should be undertaken to improve the quality of the future crops.

Priorities for thinning within five years: Great Gregories (Cpt 67) and North Farm (Cpts 71 & 73) plus southern part of Breach Barns (Cpt 3) where crowding old hedge line with veteran trees.

3. Scrub & Open Woodland : 6.67ha : Galleyhill Wood (Cpt 1k & o), West Hill (Cpt 7), Osiers (Cpt 8), Warlies Estate: unnamed Cpts 9, 17, 27, & 32).

Characterised by dense mixed thorns species, birch and willows with occasional mature oak and ash standards, hazel and elm. Whilst of little productive value, these compartments offer excellent nesting habitat and high general biodiversity value, especially where open ground and/or water are present. Most can be left with little or no intervention. However it would be desirable to restore Osiers because of its historic importance and West Hill.

4. Secondary Woodland: 5.40ha: Galleyhill Wood (Cpt 1c & l), Conybury Wood (Cpt 61b).

Naturally regenerated woodland areas formed in the past century with mainly pioneer species such as birch, willow and sycamore and with limited ground flora. Typical of sites formerly under agriculture as at Galleyhill Wood or disturbed ground as at Conybury Wood where mineral extraction is suspected. Not urgent to undertake work within 5 years - thin to the better broadleaf trees opening up around natural regeneration of oak, hornbeam and ash, if present, in due course.

5. Mature in-field Copse/Group: 1.77ha: Warlies Estate: unnamed Cpts 12, 14 to 16, 24, 26, 28 to 30. Copped Hall North: Copse (Cpt 44), Copped Hall South: unnamed Cpts 44, 45, 47 to 49, 52, 53. Woodredon Estate: unnamed Cpt 62. Birch Hall Copse (Cpt 70).

These semi-mature and mature copses and groups tend to be predominately oak and in several cases only oak, and have particularly high landscape value. The majority are located within parkland and many are open to grazing animals. Acute Oak Decline is present in several compartments at Copped Hall – these should be prioritized for carefully consideration and if considered appropriate, phytosanitary fellings, restocking and/or fencing undertaken.

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 8 Page 136

Woodland Management Plan

6. Coppice with Standards: 50.27ha: Galleyhill Wood (Cpt 1a, b, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, m & n). Brookmeadow Wood (Cpt4 c & d), Rookery Wood (Cpt 38c & d), Little Rookery Wood (Cpt 39d & f), 18 Acre (Cpt 43), Griffin’s Wood (Cpt 46), Spratt’s Hedgerow Wood (Cpt 57 d & e), Brambly Shaw & Green Lance (Cpt 65d).

This is the predominate Buffer Lands woodland type. The main coppice species are hornbeam followed by hazel, ash, sycamore and field maple. Most of the coppice is well stocked and of good but declining quality as over-mature having not been cut over for 60 to 80 years. Only Cpts 1i and 1n have been coppiced more recently i.e. within 40 years. The main standard species is oak followed by ash and hornbeam. The majority of the oak are from the mid to late 1800s forward and usually are of good quality. The objective is to restore these CWS areas to good vitality and productivity, with a rotation period of 25 to 30 years - i.e. a target of 2ha to coppice per annum. Efforts should focus initially on the most seriously declining areas which include the following:

Hornbeam CWS: Galleyhill Wood (1b, 1f & 1h), Griffin’s Wood (Cpt 46).

Ash CWS: Galleyhill Wood (1a), Little Rookery Wood (Cpt39d).

Hazel CWS: Spratt’s Wood (57e), 18 Acre (Cpt43), Little Rookery Wood (Cpt39 f), Brambly Shaw & Green Lane (Cpt 65d).

In addition, enrichment planting of new oak standards should be considered – other species are more likely to naturally regenerate.

Rides networks should be opened up and/or extend as part of the coppicing and thinning works in first five years.

7. High Forest – Broadleaf : 38.07ha: Brookmeadow Wood (Cpt 4a & b), Fernhall Wood (Cpt 5b), West Hill (Cpt 7b), Potkiln (Cpt 33), Oxleys Wood (Cpt 34), Rookery Wood (Cpt 38a), Little Rookery Wood (Cpt 39a, c & e), Finches Plantation (Cpt 40), Warren Remnant (Cpt 51), Spratt’s Hedgerow Wood (Cpt 57b, f, & g), Conybury Wood (Cpt 61a), Woodredon Estate South (unnamed Cpt 63), Brambly Shaw & Green Lane (Cpt 65 a & c), Redoak Wood & Gaunt’s Wood (Cpt 69 a & c), North Farm (unnamed Cpt 75).

This woodland type is the second most frequent and as with the CWS type is associated with many of the ASNWs. The mainly oak high forest areas are from maidens and frequently former plantations. These woods are typically of high quality, however, decline, both chronic and acute, is present at least in part in most of the woods. This justifies a selective thin of the oak on phytosanitary grounds. The other high forest areas are more mixed in species, quality and in origin with maidens and reverted coppice both often forming high forest. The stands have closed canopies and require thinning.

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 9 Page 137

Woodland Management Plan

Priority woods for thinning:

Phytosanitary and/or silvicultural

Oxleys Wood (Cpt 34), Rookery Wood (Cpt 38a), Little Rookery Wood (Cpt 39a, c & e), Finches Plantation (Cpt 40), Spratt’s Hedgerow Wood (Cpt 57b), Conybury Wood (Cpt 61a), Brambly Shaw & Green Lane (Cpt 65 c).

Silvicultural

Brookmeadow Wood (Cpt 4), Fernhall Wood (Cpt 5b) and Warren Remnant (Cpt 51).

8. High Forest - Mixed : 8.54ha: Cobbin’s Pond (Cpt 6a & c), Rookery Wood (Cpt 38e), Ridge Wood (Cpt 54), Spratt’s Hedgerow Wood (Cpt 57a), Shooting Lodge Copse (Cpt 58), Conybury Wood (Cpt 61 c) and Oxleys Wood Remnant (Cpt 64).

The majority of the woods are mature broadleaf with a relatively modest conifer element. The exceptions are Shooting Lodge Wood and Ridge Wood (Cpt 54b in particular) where over 60% on the woodland canopy is conifer. The most frequent species is Corsican pine.

Priority woods for thinning to release the broadleaf species, especially oak are:

Ridge Wood (Cpt 54), Shooting Lodge Copse (Cpt 58) and Conybury Wood (Cpt 61 c)

9. High Forest - Conifer : 1.72ha: Stable Shaw (Cpt 66 b and c).

Very small component of the Buffer Woodland. All located at Stable Shaw. It consists of poor quality pine which should be heavily thinned when the poplar at Stable Shaw is removed.

10. Wet Woodland: 7.05ha: Fernhall Wood (Cpt 5a), Cobbin’s Pond (Cpt 6b), Rookery Wood (Cpt 38b) and Stable Shaw (Cpt 66 a).

The priority should be the restoration of the native wet woodland at Fernhall Wood and Cobbin’s Pond. The poplar dominated compartments of Rookery Wood and Stable Shaw should be dealt with when markets are more favourable for poplar to offset costs. However, to prevent timber quality being adversely affected by wire, the guard surrounds on the poplar in Rookery Wood need removing as soon as possible.

Priority woods within five years:

Fernhall Wood (Cpt 5a), Cobbin’s Pond (Cpt 6b): coppicing and thinning.

Rookery Wood (Cpt 38b & e): maintenance – guard removal from poplar and Cricket Bat Willow.

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 10 Page 138

Woodland Management Plan

11. Uneven-aged Woodland

Whilst most of the Buffer Woodland comprises of several age classes, only Redoak Wood & Gaunt’s Wood have such clearly defined areas of age class, e.g. a matrix of late 1980s/early 1990s restocked plantings within a mature woodland. The priority is maintenance including shelter removal and formative pruning of the restocked areas. The removal of deer within this woodland should also be addressed as a priority.

NOTE Acute Oak Decline Trees symptomatic of Acute Oak Decline were seen in 11 Buffer Woods: Cpts 4, 5, 7, 32, 34, 38, 40, 49, 57, 65 and 69. It is likely to become more widespread and to be found in some of the semi to mature oaks across the Buffer Woodland – on-going monitoring is recommended.

2.3 Site description Access Access to the woodland is shown on the Buffer & Forest Land Map in Appendix 1 and the constraints map. Overall the areas are well served by public roads and close to the M25 and M11. However, local access and internal access to the woods is a major constraint which will require addressing. External access is typically along small public roads and lanes/streets which are narrow and difficult. Access to Buffer Woods such as Galleyhill Wood, and most of the woods at Breach Barns, Raveners, Copped Hall Estate and Woodredon Estate requires access through adjacent property, farmland and/or tenanted land. Swaines Green and North Farm have difficult access through housing estates.

Internal access is frequently off headlands (under ELS/HLS agreements) or across open farmland with paved access being very limited and restricted to only a few of the woods on the Copped Hall Estate. Hard standings, designated stacking areas and turning Ts are absent, as are well maintained rides. Woodland ride networks do exist at Galleyhill Wood and for most of the Copped Hall Estate woods but are only present in Fernhall Wood at Warlies Park. Elsewhere in the mature woodland, the ride network has been lost (e.g. at Redoak Wood & Gaunt’s Wood). They are present, however, within the developing large plantations at Great Gregories and Breach Barns and, informally, at Swaines Green.

A substantial proportion of the Buffer Land (Breach Barns (southern extent), Warlies Park Estate, Copped Hall Estate (southern extent), Swaines Green, Great Gregories, Birch Hall Fields and part of Woodredon Estate (Green Lane and land west of Potkiln Wood) has permissive access in addition to PROWs. The maps showing the extent of permissive access are located at Appendix 8.

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 11 Page 139

Woodland Management Plan

Elevation The elevation of the Buffer Woodland ranges from the lowest lying ground of 30 to 50m at North Farm up to the higher ground of 50 to 105m at Galleyhill Wood. The elevation range of other woods falls between these and typically varies across a site by 20 to 30m in elevation as is to be expected on gently undulating ground. The woods are located variously between valley bottoms and higher ground. Mechanised operations over the Buffer Woodland are generally unconstrained due to terrain.

Soil and climatic conditions The Buffer Woodland is situated on Lower Eocene strata with soil type being London Clay. Soilscapes (National Soil Resources Institute) describes the Buffer Land soils as being slowly permeable seasonally wet, slightly acid but base-rich loamy and clayey soils. Habitats are listed as seasonally wet pastures and woodland and land cover as grassland and arable with some woodland. Drainage is impeded and fertility is considered to be moderate. The exception is for Swaines Green which is on the border of what is previously described and chalky boulder clay which is lime-rich loamy and clayey soils with slightly impeded drainage and higher fertility.

The Forestry Commission’s GB Forestry Decision Support System provides the following data for the Buffer Woodland: Yield class (indication of productivity): 6 for oak, 8 for ash, silver birch, cherry and sycamore, 10 for aspen and alder but only 6 for poplar (reflecting poplar requirement for more fertile ground), 12 for Scots pine and 14 for Corsican pine. ATS (Accumulated temperature): 1783.7 (measure of site warmth, day degrees above 5C) CT (Continentally): 10.0 (reflects seasonal variation) DAMS (Detailed Aspect Methods of Scoring): 8.8 on the DAMS score (indicates exposure on a scale of 3 to 36- windiest, below 12 considered sheltered) MD (Moisture Deficit): 204.3 (indication of the dryness of the growing season) SMR (Soil Moisture Regime): Very moist SNR (Soil Nutrient Regime): Medium Average summer rainfall: 302.8mm, Average winter rainfall 308.8mm.

This data is within the normal range for southern Britain. The main factor constraining the woodland’s productivity is fertility but this minor.

2.4 Significant hazards, constraints and threats Access, both vehicle and public, will be important constraints to woodland operations as will the predominately clayey soils of the Buffer Land. Harvesting operations will need to be planned to ensure disruption to adjoining landowners/properties and public is minimized with significant communication required to inform the different parties of the operations. With the clayey soil type, the timing of operations will be critical to avoid rutting and compaction of rides during harvesting operations. Hard access to and internal ride access within the woodland is limited and

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 12 Page 140

Woodland Management Plan will require improvement to enable operations to be undertaken cost effectively and with minimal impacts. Care will be needed to ensure significant earthworks and water features/courses are not damaged or associated fauna, e.g. Great Created Newts, unduly disturbed.

The major threat to the regeneration of the woods is deer (Fallow and Muntjac). However, rabbits and grey squirrels also all pose a threat to the productivity and biodiversity of the woodland. A Deer Management Plan has been produced and action is being taken to increase the control of the deer.

Acute Oak Decline (AOD) and the Agrilus beetle are currently present in a small proportion of the semi to mature oak in the Buffer Woods. The extent of spread and severity should be monitored to inform selective oak thinning operations. Acute Oak Decline is a threat to all mature oaks on the Buffer Land and a policy of felling and removing dead and dying oaks should be adopted. Other approaches may be identified as appropriate in the future.

Severe decline is present in the ash in 18 Acre (probably resulting from past flooding events as well as Bacterial Canker) and the lower part of Finches Plantation which limits productivity.

3 Long term vision, management objectives and strategy

3.1 Long term vision “To sustainably managed the Buffer Woodland as part of the wider Buffer Land so to safeguard the rural environment of the forest and thereby it’s natural aspect or feel and to provide the Forest wildlife support and complementary wildlife habitats, thus facilitating the protection of the Forest’s flora and fauna”.

The long-term policy to achieve this vision is to: • Retain and bring the woodland back into productive management through a programme of coppicing, thinning and restructuring, where applicable, in order to maximise yield and sustainabilty. • Protect and improve the bio-diversity of all the Buffer Woodland, giving particular attention to achieving this in both the ASNW and PAWS. • Develop uneven aged multi-storey stands leading to increased biodiversity and sustained yields • Open up the existing woodland ride system and glades and, where necessary, create new rides and glades. Work towards producing a structurally more diverse ride edge both to improve access and biodiversity • Produce high quality fuel wood and timber • Maintain and improve the woodland value and landscape characteristics • Provide public access and enjoyment

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 13 Page 141

Woodland Management Plan

3.2 Management Objectives

No. Objective 1 To develop and improve the bio-diversity value of the woodland with particular attention to Galleyhill Wood, Spratt’s Wood, Griffin’s Wood and Redoak Wood & Gaunt’s Wood. 2 To manage the woodland to provide sustainable firewood via traditional coppice with standard systems. 3 To produce high quality timber by implementing an appropriate thinning regime. 4 To open up the ride system and develop glades therefore increasing the light levels reaching the woodland floor. 5 To monitor presence & impact of Acute Oak Decline, adjusting thinning regimes to minimize losses. 6 To manage standing crops at minimal net cost. 7 To maintain the landscape value of the woodlands, particularly in relation to their prominent position in the local landscape. 8 To preserve archaeological features such as earthworks, the woodland banks and any other features which may be identified at a later date. 9 To protect veteran trees and ensure the future presence of over-mature specimens. 10 To ensure that high levels of dead wood are retained during all woodland management operations. 11 To control and manage grey squirrels, rabbits, hares and deer (A Deer Management Plan has been produced). 12 To provide safe and enjoyable public access.

3.3 Strategy The strategy is to establish an informed management regime which will ensure the continuous management of the Buffer Land woodland in order to;

• Retain the Buffer Woodland as important landscape features.

• Increase light reaching the woodland floor in order to improve bio-diversity and regeneration.

• Improve the diversity and age structure to benefit their ecological and amenity values and landscape character. • Improve the stocking and timber quality throughout all the woodland.

• Improve access to and within woodland as appropriate to facilitate management and other operations.

• Produce material for sale, through regular thinning and coppicing, wherever appropriate.

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 14 Page 142

Woodland Management Plan

For the majority of the Buffer Woodland thinning will be undertaken on a 5-7 year cycle.

Coppicing will be undertaken on a 25-30 year rotation. Recently cut areas will be protected by either temporary or permanent fencing until fully established.

Wherever possible native broadleaves will be favoured.

Thinning will be carried out using a combination of mechanical harvesting and motor manual felling.

AOD. Remove majority of dead and dying oaks while still of timber value.

3.4 Woodfuel Initiative Would you be interested in receiving information on funding opportunities for the purchase of harvesting machinery or wood fuel boilers, or for grants that support timber production from your woodlands?

Yes (delete as appropriate)

4 Management prescriptions/operations

4.1 Silvicultural systems 4.1.1 Harvesting All harvesting proposals shall take account of :

• The effect of land designations (ASNW & PAWS), archaeological features, special habitats and species, water, access, and other issues. This will be achieved by identifying and avoiding impact upon sensitive biological and archaeological features. • Features of the internal and external landscape in need of conservation or improvement. • Consideration of non-intervention on specific sites. • Retaining veteran trees unless this creates an unreasonable safety risk. • Create new pollards where appropriate. • AOD

Harvesting will be carried out using a combination of mechanical processing and motor manual operations. All timber will be removed from the confines of the wood by forwarder and stacked on agreed sites ready for lorry haulage to the appropriate markets.

4.1.2 Phased felling and restructuring of plantations The proposed works will improve the structure of the woodlands by reinstating coppice rotations and silvicultural thinning. In cases where significant areas of oak are affected by AOD, selective thinning may be undertaken to potentially safeguard other trees on the Buffer Land and to initiate restructuring.

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 15 Page 143

Woodland Management Plan

Natural regeneration will be encouraged in order to retain the character of the ASNW woodland. Thus the species mix will largely remain as it, dominated by the site’s native trees.

Thinning will be on 5 - 7 year rotation.

Coppicing will be on 25 - 30 year rotation.

Poplar plantations will be removed when market conditions allow and native wet woodland recreated.

High Forest areas will be managed under a Continuous Cover Forestry system.

A small percentage of conifers will be left standing as part of the long-term retention policy and as a source of cover and roosting for birds of prey and other species.

4.1.3 Establishment, restocking and regeneration The aim is to restock with natural regeneration and every effort will be made to control deer and rabbits, which at their present levels will have an adverse effect upon this objective. The success of oak regeneration will be monitored and if it was felt necessary then the Buffer Woods’ own genetic stock or material of good local provenance will be planted.

Should restocking be required, a mixture of suitable species in percentage terms would be: Major tree species: 55-60% Minor tree species: 25-30% Woody shrubs: 10% Open ground: 10%

4.2 New planting

No new plantings are proposed at present.

4.3 Other operations

Formative pruning of selected hardwoods will be encouraged.

Established plantations will be maintained to improve the quality of the tree crop. Plastic ware

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 16 Page 144

Woodland Management Plan will be removed.

Two and three zone ride management will be implemented as appropriate.

Woodland hedges may be coppiced and/or laid to encourage regeneration and aid development of diverse and sheltering woodland margins.

4.4 Protection and maintenance 4.4.1 Pest and disease management Deer occur in significant numbers in the locality and a Deer Management Plan has been produced to inform the process of managing the population. Efforts will be made to work with adjoining land owners to control deer. Squirrels and rabbits are also having an impact upon regeneration and tree quality. One of the objectives of the Management Plan will be to establish an effective control for all these animals.

Acute Oak Decline poses a significant threat to all mature oaks on the Buffer Land. A policy of felling and removing dead and dying oaks will be adopted. This approach will be modified in the light of future recommendations by Forest Research.

4.4.2 Fire plan As the Buffer Land woods are predominately broadleaf, a fire risk is perceived as being a low. However, contractors and forestry operatives working on the woodland will be given site information and contact details to use in the event of a fire. In the event of a fire being reported, the Fire Brigade must be contacted immediately. Rendezvous points will be agreed with City of London. Permanent water sources are marked on the Constraints Map. The local Fire Brigade should be consulted regarding access and water availability.

4.4.3 Waste disposal and pollution This policy is retained at the City of London offices. The disposal of waste will be carried out so as to minimize any negative impact on the environment. All contractors are required to carry appropriate spill kits.

4.4.4 Protection from unauthorised activities City Of London staff ensure that unauthorised activities such as fly tipping, unauthorised access, etc. are kept to a minimum. Where fly tipping occurs, the waste is removed to a landfill site by a registered waste carrier.

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 17 Page 145

Woodland Management Plan

4.4.5 Protection of other identified services and values The constraints map clearly shows the utility services and Public Rights of Way across the Buffer Land. Should operations require it, the appropriate service provider will be contacted and consulted prior to operations being initiated. Warning notices of works will be erected as necessary in advance of and maintained for the duration of works.

4.5 Game management Game is a not major consideration in the Buffer Woodland.

4.6 Protecting and enhancing landscape, biodiversity and special features 4.6.1 Management of designated areas ASNW, PAWS, CWS and CA areas will be managed in accordance with Good Practice Guidelines. The City of London’s policy on bats is located at Appendix 9.

4.6.2 Measures to enhance biodiversity and other special features [UKWAS 2.1.1/6.1.1] The measures outlined below are designed to improve the bio-diversity of the Buffer Woodland. Deer browsing has had a very considerable effect upon the woods and this has resulted in the substantial reduction of both the understory and the ground flora. It is of great important that deer management is effectively undertaken in accord with the Deer Management Plan. In addition, the following management operations will enhance the bio-diversity of the woodland areas;

• Establish a coppice management rotation throughout the appropriate woods. • Protect regeneration from browsing damage. • Establish a thinning policy for all high forest areas. • Let more light into the rides by cutting back ride side vegetation. • Annual mowing of rides. • The annual management of ride side scallops. • The creation of ride side glades and clearings. • Take appropriate action to maintain existing veteran trees, boundary pollards and ancient coppices stools (hornbeam in particular). • Select suitable trees for long term retention as veterans. • Avoid woodland operations during the bird nesting season when possible. • Retention of dead wood as per Good Practice guidelines. • Avoid damage to wood banks and other historic features. • Avoid damage to wet areas through limited trafficking. • Coppice a proportion of scrub to diversity age structure and encourage regeneration.

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 18 Page 146

Woodland Management Plan

• Clear encroaching vegetation from significant ponds and watercourses. • Poplar will be removed from wet woodland sites as markets allow and native wet woodland encouraged to regenerate.

4.6.3 Special measures for ancient semi-natural woodland (ASNW) and semi-natural woodland (SNW) Beside the measures as described in 4.6.2, the following measures will be taken:-

• Every effort will be made through appropriate management to maintain the present tree communities. • All appropriate management will be carried out to retain and enhance the flora and fauna in all the Buffer Woodland with particular attention being given to achieving this objective in ASNW and other semi natural woodland.

4.6.4 Special measures for plantation on ancient woodland site (PAWS) A policy priority is to reduce the conifer element within the PAWS woodland by a series of thinning operations and to encourage and protect broadleaf regeneration.

4.6.5 Measures to mitigate impacts on landscape and neighbouring land [UKWAS 3.1.2] Thinning and coppicing operations will be designed in such a way as to minimise the impact upon the local landscape and neighbouring land.

4.7 Management of social and cultural values 4.7.1 Archaeology and sites of cultural interest The County Archaeologists has been consulted about the archaeological features and any recommendations received will be incorporated into the Constraints and Operations maps.

Work within the Conservation Areas of Upshire and Copped Hall & Park will be agreed and undertaken with the appropriate parties for each site.

4.7.2 Public access and impacts on local people The Buffer Land is well served by public footpaths and bridleways as well as having large permissive access areas which includes the woodland. Every effort will be made to minimise the impact of woodland operations upon the local community.

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 19 Page 147

Woodland Management Plan

5 Consultation

Organisation/individual Date received Comment Response/action Epping Forest District Will be consulted Council as statutory consultees by FC Natural England Essex Wildlife Trust Essex County Council Archaeology Department

6 Monitoring plan summary

Objective number, Indicator Method of Monitoring Responsibility How will issue or UKWAS assessment period information be Requirement used?

Landscape Feature Prominence in Fixed point Every five Owner/Agent Feedback into the Landscape photography years thinning and and Google coppicing Earth planning Structural Diversity Natural Fixed point Annually for Owner/Agent Feedback into regeneration photography first five years thinning and and coppice and walkover and then coppice stools survey every five planning. regrowth. years Habitat Flora and Fixed point Annually Owner/Agent Feedback into Improvement fauna photography thinning and increase. and walkover coppice survey planning

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 20 Page 148

Woodland Management Plan

Damage through Deer, Squirrel Survey Annually in Owner/Agent/Stal Feedback into pests and disease and Rabbit damage spring/ ker planning for damage noting areas Summer. control levels extent most effected. Recently Record coppiced areas number culled will be monitored at AOD and regular Agrilus intervals throughout the year until regrowth is above deer browsing height.

7 Work programmes

7.1 Outline long-term work programme (2012 - 2032) (Use this table to outline medium to long term areas of work) Cpt. Ref or Activity Year (tick) Name 6-10 11-20 To be completed once the short term programme is agreed

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 21 Page 149

Woodland Management Plan 7.2 Short-term work programme (2012 - 2017) DRAFT – will be shown on operation maps in Appendix 2 once agreed.

(Use this table to collect basic inventory data for the woodland areas you propose to work during the next 5 years)

Cpt/ sub -cpt Area Species P/yr Yield Activity Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 (ha) Class 1a 0.98 AH/HBM/FM/POK/HAZ 1900/1930 8 Coppice √ 1b 2.52 HBM/AH/POK/FM/HAZ/WS/HAW pre1900/1940 6 Coppice √ 1f 3.67 HBM/BI/SY/POK/SC/CH pre1900/1950 8 Coppice √ 1h 2.48 HBM/POK/BI/SY/AH pre1900/1930 6 Coppice √ 4c 0.26 HBM/HAZ/POK/SY/WIL/WPO/HAW/SC pre1900/1950/1990 6 Coppice √ 4d 2.64 POK/SY/HBM/HAZ/AH/SC/HAW/BT/WPO/C pre1900/1940 8 Coppice (50% of area) P/HOL/HC √ Page 150 6b 0.72 WIL/AL/HAW/POK/HAZ/ASP pre1900/1980 8 Coppice √ 7a 0.63 BT/HAW/POK/SY/AH/PO/ASP/CP/FM pre1900/1970 6 Coppice (25% of area) √ 8 0.65 HAW/BT/WIL/POK/AH 1960 8 Coppice √ 9 0.05 HAW/BT/WIL/POK 1960 4 Coppice √ 14 0.08 EM/SY/HAW/POK 1940/1990 6 Coppice √ 39d 0.82 HBM/POK/AH/EM/HAZ/PO/BI/BT/FM 1940/1980 8 Coppice √ 39f 0.46 HAZ/AH/POK/BT 1940 6 Coppice √ 40a 0.63 POK/BT/AH/WIL/PO/FM/HBM/EM pre1900/1960 8 Coppice √ 43a 1.50 AH/HAZ/POK/HBM/HBM/FM/CP/BT/HAW 1930/1970 6 Coppice √ 43b 2.41 HBM/AH/POK/HAZ/CP/WIL/BT 1930 6 Coppice √ 46 1.13 SY/HBM/POK/AH/EM/HAZ/SP/NS/HOL/BT/H pre1900/1930/1990 6 Coppice AW √ 57c 0.34 SY/BT/HAW/AL/WPO/POK/HAZ 1970 6 Coppice √ 57d 1.51 POK/HBM/SY/AH/HAZ/ PO/FM pre1900/1980 8 Coppice √ 57e 3.40 POK/ASH/HAZ/SY/HBM pre1900 6 Coppice √ 59a 2.74 BT/HAW/POK/SY/AH/FM/EM/WIL pre1900/1970 4 Coppice (50% of area) √ 59b 3.21 POK/AH/BT/HAW/FM/BI/HAZ/HB/HOL pre1900/1970 6 Coppice (50% of area) √ 65d 0.48 HAZ/HBM/POK/BI/AH/FM/EM/BT/HAW/HOL pre1900/1950 6 Coppice √

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 22

Woodland Management Plan 3b 2.15 POK/AH/HBM/ASP/AL/WIL/WSH/PO 1960/1994 6 Thinning √ 3b 3.06 POK/AH/HBM/ASP/AL/WIL/WSH/PO 1940/1994 6 Thinning √ 4a 0.47 SY/SC/WIL/POK/HAZ pre1900/1950/1990 8 Thinning √ 4d 2.64 POK/SY/HBM/HAZ/AH/SC/HAW/BT/WPO/C pre1900/1940 8 Thinning (50% of area) P/HOL/HC √ 5b 3.72 POK/AH/HBM/HAZ/BT/CP/SP 1935/1955 6 Thinning √ 7a 0.63 BT/HAW/POK/SY/AH/PO/ASP/CP/FM pre1900/1970 6 Thinning (75% of area) √ 7b 0.50 POK/BT/HAW/FM/SY pre1900 6 Thinning √ 28 0.06 CP/HBM/SC/POK/HAW 1940 6 Thinning √ 32 0.21 POK/AH/HAW/HOL/HC pre1900/1950 6 Thinning √ 34 4.92 POK/HBM/HAW/ SY/AH/EM/BT/CP/SP/HOL pre1900/1930/1990 6 Thinning √ 39a 0.40 BT/POK/AH/EM/WCH/PO pre1900/1980 6 Thinning √ 39b 0.42 POK/SY/EM/PO/SP/NS pre1900/1930/1980 6 Thinning √ 39c 1.19 POK/SY/NS/AH/HAW 1950 7 Thinning √ 39e 0.59 AH/POK/CP/HAZ/BT pre1900/1950 6 Thinning √ 40b 0.73 POK/EM/BE/BI/SY/HBM/AH/SP/NS pre1900/1960/1990 6 Thinning √ Page 151 40c 1.77 POK/EM/SY/AH/HBM/HOL/HC pre1900/1920/1990 6 Thinning √ 40d 0.74 POK/AH/SY/EM/HAW/BT pre1900/1920/1990 6 Thinning √ 51 0.68 POK/SY/SP/HBM/CH/WCH/BI/HOL/WIL/WR pre1900/1940/1960 8 Thinning C/EM √ 54a 0.94 SY/BE/PO/CP/SP/AH/POK/EM/WCH/ROB pre1900/1970 8 Thinning √ 54b 1.60 CP/POK/LC/WCH 1970 10 Thinning √ 57a 1.90 POK/HB/SY/PO/CP/AH/HAZ pre1900/1980 8 Thinning √ 57b 0.93 POK/AH/SY/HAZ/HBM/CP/FM/HAW/BT pre1900/1980 8 Thinning √ 57f 2.06 AH/SY/HBM/POK/FM/CH/CP pre1900 6 Thinning √ 57g 0.73 SY/AH/HBM/POK/FM/EL/CP/SP/BT/HAW pre1900/1970 6 Thinning √ 58 0.37 CP/POK/CH/NS/BE/ASP/SP/LC/WRC 1970 8 Thinning √ 61 4.44 POK/SY/BE/HBM/SC/AH/SP/FM pre1900/1930/1980 8 Thinning √ 61 1.94 SY/HBM/AL/FM/BI/POK/WIL/AH/SP/CP 1950/1970 6 Thinning √ 61 1.14 POK/CP/PO/BI/HBM/SY/FM/HAW 1930/1970 8 Thinning √ 65a 1.33 POK/HBM/HAW/BT/AH/HAZ/HOL pre1900/1960 6 Thinning √ 65c 0.62 POK/HBM/HAW/EM pre1920/1970 6 Thinning √ 66a 1.14 PO/SY/POK/SP/SC/AH/WIL/HAZ/HAW pre1900/1940/1960 14 Thinning √ 66b 0.55 SP/BE/HAZ/SY/NS/SC pre1900/1940/1960 8 Thinning √ ______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 23

Woodland Management Plan 66c 1.17 SP/POK/SY/BI/HAZ/AH pre1900/1940/1960 8 Thinning √ 67a 2.07 POK/AH/HBM/WIL/WSH 1990 8 Thinning √ 67b 6.74 POK/AH/HBM/ASP/CAR/WIL/WSH 1990 8 Thinning √ 67c 5.42 POK/AH/HBM/ASP/CAR/WIL/WSH 1992 6 Thinning √ 69b 5.53 HBM/POK/BI/BE/FM/WCH/WS/HOL pre1900/1980 6 Thinning √ 69c 1.81 POK/AH/HBM/WCH/HAW/HOL pre1900/2000 6 Thinning √ 69d 3.18 HBM/AH/POK/FM/BI/WCH/HAW/HOL pre1900/1980 6 Thinning √ 71 3.29 AH/POK/HBM/PO/WIL/HAW/BT/FM pre1900/1990 8 Thinning √ 75 0.50 POK/AH/PO/HBM/HAW/BT pre1900/1960 4 Selective felling of poor poplar adjacent to PROW √ 2,3,10,11,13,18- Maintenance of young 23,25,31,36,37,41- plantations including 42,55,59,60,65b,67, protection, weed control, 68,71-74. 49.26 POK/AH/HBM/SY 1990 onwards 6 formative pruning √ √ √ √ √ Removal of wire guard material from poplar and 38b,38e,66a. 6.42 PO/WIL 1960/1970 10 Cricket bat willow. √

Page 152 1-5,33,34,38-, 40,43,46,54,55,57- Ride and open space 59,61,65-67,69,75. n/a n/a n/a n/a management √ √ √ √ √ 1, 5-7, 12,14-17, 24, Selective thin to remove oak 26-30, 32-34,38-40, affected by AOD – estimated 43-54, 57-59, 61,63, to be less than 10% of oak 64,66,69. 128.20 Semi mature and mature oak Pre 1900 to 1970s 6 population overall √ √ √ √ √ Pest and disease monitoring All 177.46 All species listed above Pre1900 onwards 4-10 and control √ √ √ √ √

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 24

Woodland Management Plan

8 Costing Operations

Outline projected costs and income over plan period. Please read guidance note for further information.

It is anticipated that the proposed woodland operations will show a small annual cost to the Estate initially. As management and operations become more routine and move to more productive areas, it is expected that a modest annual return to the Estate will be made.

9 Maps

It is recommended that you show as much information on subject based maps as possible. For example, a map showing site constraints or a concept map showing the main proposals.

List all maps here and append to plan:

Map no./Title Description Appendix 1 Buffer and Forest Land Map and Boundary Maps Appendix 2 Compartment Maps, Constraints Maps, Woodland Type Maps and Operation Maps Appendix 5 Conservation Area Maps Appendix 7 Copped Hall Registered Parks & Gardens Maps Appendix 8 Permissive Access Maps

______WPG MPTemplate V3.1 issued 11.06.22 | Grants & Regulations | 25 Page 153 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 154 Page 155 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 156 Page 157 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 158 Page 159 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 160 Page 161 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 162 Page 163 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 164 Page 165 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 166 Page 167 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 168 Page 169 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 170 Page 171 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 172

Deer Management Plan For The City of London Corporation Buffer Land

Page 173

Date written: March 2012 Date revised:

1. Background Information

1.1 Ownerships and contacts Owner/tenant: The City of London Corporation Agent/contact: Rod Pass Deer stalker(s): Deer Mgt Group: Cobbins Brook Deer Management Group Plan written by: Harry Barnett

1.2 Location

Nearest town, village, or feature Epping, Waltham Abbey,Harlow, Theydon Bois and Loughton

Grid reference TL416007 (Oxleys Wood, central location) Total area of woodland 175.45ha (working figure)

Total area of arable 163.09 ha Total area of holding 735.60 ha

1.3 Description of woodland(s)

The Buffer Land is primarily situated adjacent to the M25 between the urban settlements of Waltham Abbey and Epping. It includes the woodland (some 133 ha) plus farmland and parkland making up the remnants of three historic Estates, Copped Hall and Warlies to the north of the M25 and Woodredon to south. The woodland areas on these Estates are predominately mature broadleaf with Galleyhill Wood being the largest at 37.38ha with the remainder being typically between 1ha and 10 ha. There are four other areas of woodland: Three are situated to the east of Epping Forest: Great Gregories (14.23ha), Gaunt’s Wood & Red Oak Wood (14.60ha) and North Farm (5.33ha). The fourth, Swaines Green (5.96ha), is located on the north west edge of the town of Epping. The bulk of Epping Forest lies to the south of the M25 which is linked to the Buffer Land by three bridges, Woodredon Farm Lane, Warren Plantation and Bell Common Tunnel, an underpass on Woodgreen Road and the Selvage deer tunnel.

The Buffer Land woods reflect the changes and fashions in woodland management on English Estates over many centuries. Six of the woods are designated as Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland: Galleyhill Wood, Griffin’s Wood, Spratt’s Hedgerow Wood, Oxley Wood, Gaunt’s Wood and Red Oak Wood. These woods still retain vestiges of their naturally occurring tree species, oak, ash, hazel, elm and field maple with substantial areas of hornbeam particularly in Galleyhill Wood. There are a number of woods, particularly th th surrounding the parklands of Copped Hall and Woodredon Park that were planted during the 18 , 19 and th 20 centuries for both landscape and game. These woods contain some impressive stands of oak and remnants of earlier conifer plantings, typified by a number of stands of large Corsican pine. The parkland areas are punctuated by small woodland plantings, typically of oak, covering the same time periods.

The City of London Corporation bought much of the Buffer Land in 1992 and since then new woodland plantings have been carried out across a lot of the holding. The larger plantings include those at Breach Barns, Great Gregories and North Farm. Native broadleaves species formed the bulk of the tree species Page 174 used.

1.4 History of Woodland Management

The majority of the mature woodland has seen no significant management since WW2 or earlier. Galleyhill Wood, the largest wood on the Buffer Lands at 37.38ha, still retains much of its coppice with standards structure. Most of the wood is dominated by hornbeam coppice much of which has not been cut for at least 80 years. Oak standards are sparse and there are frequent remnants throughout of stumps of oak felled in WW1 and WW2. The other ASNW have remnants of Coppice With Standards structure however much has been converted to high forest as a result of the high oak prices of the early 1800’s. Many of the woods in th th Copped Hall Park and Woodredon Park were planted in the 19 and 20 for landscape and game. Conifer species which were used as nurse crops for the oak have largely been removed.

Plantings took place from 1992 onwards as outlined above.

1.5 Boundary factors

The M25 is the major barrier for deer moving from the Buffer Land into Epping Forest but a substantial number of deer do cross the various bridges and under passes outlined in 1.3 (see also Dr. Jochen Langbein’s reports of 1996, 2007 and 2009, Appendix 4). Fallow deer move freely to the north and occur in large numbers in woodlands on the outskirts of Harlow, 4 kilometres away.

1.6 Woodland Areas and features

In Adjacent to Not 1.6.1 Designated Areas Map Woodland Woodland Present Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) √ Special Protection Area √ Conservation Area √ √ National Park √ National Scenic Area √ National Nature Reserve √ Special Area of Conservation √ Environmentally Sensitive Area √ Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty √ Tree Preservation Order √ World Heritage Site √

Page 175 Details LIS and GLADE searches were undertaken. Woods listed as County Wildlife Sites (CWS): Conybury Wood, Finches Plantation, Galleyhill Wood, Green Lane & Brambly Shaw, Griffin’s Wood, Little Rookery, Oxleys Wood Complex (includes Potkiln Wood and connecting green lanes), Red Oak Wood & Gaunt’s Wood, Rookery Wood, Spratt’s Hedgerow Wood, 18 Acre Wood. The following woods are mentioned in the citation for Warlies Park – Brookmeadow Wood, Fernhall Wood (the northern extent is also included in the Cobbin’s Brook citation), Cobbins Pond and West Hill. TPOs are present at Galleyhill Wood, Oxleys Wood, Potkiln Wood, Red Oak Wood & Gaunt’s Wood, Rookery Wood, Spratt’s Hedgerow Wood, 18 Acre Wood plus Warlies Park.

In Adjacent to Not 1.6.2 Rare or threatened species Map Woodland Woodland Present Red Data Book or BAP species √ √ Rare or threatened species √ √ Details: Species list for Buffer Land are attached in Appendix 5. County Wildlife Site citations providing additional species information will be included in the accompanying Woodland Management Plan.

In Adjacent to Not 1.6.3 Habitats Map Woodland Woodland Present Ancient semi-natural woodland (ASNW) √ Other semi-natural woodland √ Plantations on ancient woodland sites (PAWS) Semi-natural features in PAWS Woodland margins and hedges √ Veteran and other notable trees √ Breeding sites Habitats of notable species √ Unimproved grassland √ Rides and open ground √ Valuable wildlife communities Feeding areas Lowland heath Peatlands Others Comments; The following woods are designated ASNW; Galleyhill Wood, Griffin’s Wood, Spratt’s Hedgerow Wood, Oxley Wood, Gaunt’s Wood & Red Oak Wood. Whilst there are no officially designated PAWS sites, plantations are present in part at Spratt’s Hedgerow Wood and Gaunt’s Wood & Red Oak Wood. Other semi-natural woodland includes Conybury Wood, Green Lane & Brambly Shaw, Little Rookery, Potkiln Wood and connecting green lanes Red Oak Wood & Gaunt Wood, Rookery Wood and 18 Acre Wood. In addition, the following woods are mentioned in the CWS citation for Warlies Park – Brookmeadow Wood, Fernhall Wood (the northern extent of which is also included in the Cobbin’s Brook citation), Cobbins Pond and West Hill. County Wildlife Site citations providing additional habitat information will be included in the accompanying Woodland Management Plan.

2. Deer - The Current Situation

Page 176 2.1 What is the history of deer in the area

The origins of fallow deer in Epping Forest can not accurately be defined but a document of 1495 first records the fallow deer as a separate species from red deer. The population has fluctuated over the centuries declining to 10 in 1860 and rising to 200 by the 1890s. This more or less coincides with The Epping Forest Act of 1878 when deer would have been given greater protection. A black form of fallow th has been associated with Epping since its introduction to the Forest in the 17 century. Every effort has been made to maintain this black fallow type and this culminated with the establishment of the Deer Sanctuary at Theydon Bois in the 1960’s, where today some 150 animals are permanently enclosed. Excluding the Deer Sanctuary, the fallow deer population north of the M25 up to Harlow is estimated to be in excess of 400 (325 Fallow and 41 Muntjac were recorded in the 2012 day time count).

Muntjac deer have been present since the early 1970’s and their numbers have continued to increase since that time; 41 were recorded during the 2012 day time count. This is almost certainly a gross under estimate of the actual population across the Buffer Land.

Neither roe nor red deer have been recorded in the Forest or the Buffer Land for some considerable period of time. The last records for both occurring regularly were in the 1880’s.

2.2 What species are currently present or are likely to colonise within the next 5 years?

Likely Species Not present Present To be present Red √ Sika √ Fallow √ Roe √ Muntjac √ Chinese Water Deer (CWD) √

2.3 What are the current impacts?

Impact Minimal Moderate Severe

Browsing √

Fraying √

Bark stripping √

Ground flora degradation √

Loss of woodland structure √

Deer Road Traffic collisions √

Crop damage √

2.4 Deer management

2.4.1 Are deer being culled:

Last Three Years Cull Figures

Page 177 Year Red Fallow Roe Muntjac Total

2010/2011 NA 78 NA 0 78

2009/2010 NA 98 NA 0 98

2008/2009 NA 100 NA 0 100

Page 178 DEER ACTIVITY AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENT SCORES: SUMMARY ACROSS THE BUFFER LAND

Date: March 2012 Site: COL Buffer Land Species present: Fallow, Muntjac. Time spent: 3 days Recorder: HB Species doing most damage: Fallow, Muntjac.

Activity Tally Score (0-3) Sightings of 60 Fallow 3 deer 5 Muntjac Slot Marks 3 Active 3 Pathways Droppings & 2 Scrapes TOTAL 11 SCORE

Damage Low Moderate High Score (0-3) Flora/Grasses √ 2 Eaten Woody Shoots Regeneration √ 3 Eaten Coppice √ 3 Bramble √ 3 Other √ 3 Bark Removed Fraying √ 2 Bark Stripping √ 2 Browse Line Bramble √ 3 Coppice/Standards √ 3 Shrubs √ 3 Broken Stems √ 2 TOTAL SCORE 12

Comments: The Activity and Damage Scoring are based on the system designed by Arnold Cooke with some refinements by Ray Tabor, where a score of 1-3 is given for each of the four categories for Activity and each of the five categories for Damage. This give a total of 0 –12 for Activity and 0 –15 for Damage. The higher the scores the greater the damage to the woodland.

Activity Score:

0 – 3 = No problem 4 – 6 = Damage to sensitive features 7 – 9 = Unacceptable levels of damage with no regeneration >10 = Critical levels of damage, no regeneration

With a total score of 11 for activity and 12 for damage, clearly there are high levels of activity and critical levels damage preventing regeneration of the woodland occurring in the Buffer Land.

2.4.2 Apart from daytime, in season culling, are any other methods of management used? (E.g. chemical protection, fencing, night shooting, please give details)

Deer fencing will be used to protect coppice regrowth and natural regeneration.

Page 179 3. Future Management

3.1 Long Term Vision or Policy (e.g. “maintain deer populations in balance with woodland and agricultural interests” or “bring SSSI woodland into improving condition by year XXXX”)

Deer

The long term policy is to maintain deer populations in balance with woodland and the wider countryside.

Fallow

The existing fallow population is having adversely impacting upon regeneration and biodiversity of the Estates woodland.

As mentioned earlier, Dr. Jochen Langbein prepared detailed reports on the fallow deer of Epping Forest and its Buffer Lands beginning in 1996 and then subsequently in 2007 and 2009 (Appendix 4). He recommended that the fallow deer population should be reduced to a target of 200 to maintain the historically important fallow population of Epping Forest. Thus far this figure has not been attained (2012 day time count was 325).

This Deer Management Plan differs in that its principle objective is to maintain deer populations in balance with the woodland and the wider countryside. This approach will not only provided the opportunity for the condition of the woods and associated biodiversity to recover and improve substantially, but also to maintain a sustainable fallow deer population. To achieve the desired balance, especially in the ASNWs, a fallow deer population of less than 200 is required.

It is suggested that over the next 5 years the objective should be to reduce the fallow to a spring population of 150 (recommended level) and to work towards a more balanced sex ratio approaching 1:1. The monitoring of deer impact and damage will be critical in assessing long term fallow population levels.

A better understanding of the populations within Epping Forest and the movement of deer between the Buffer Land to Epping Forest would help determine acceptable future fallow levels. Deer Impact Assessments in Epping Forest would also help considerably. Further monitoring of woodland and hedgerow flora and fauna on the Buffer Land would be advantageous.

Reeves Muntjac

The existing Muntjac population is also adversely impacting regeneration and biodiversity of the Estates woodland. The policy that has been adopted elsewhere and appears to be effective is to bring Muntjac into the culling regime, culling Muntjac wherever possible provided it is safe and humane to do so. There is no close season for Muntjac which extends the possibility to cull outside the fallow season.

Other species

A policy for other species should be developed if and when they are found to occur in the Buffer Land.

Woodland

The policy for the woodland is to develop uneven aged multi storey stands, both through thinning and coppicing, to increased biodiversity and sustained yields. Tree replacement will be primarily achieved by utilising natural regeneration. All this is dependent on effective deer management and establishing a population that is in balance with the woodland.

Ride widening will be carried out to both improve the structure of the woods and enhance deer control.

Reducing populations to the recommended level will not be sufficient to enable the Buffer Land’s woods to regenerate naturally and thus any future woodland work, especially coppicing, will have to be protected by fencing.

Page 180 3.2 Management Objectives and Strategy ( how do you intend to fulfil the Long Term Policy, e.g. “daytime culling together with strategic fencing, to reduce loss of beech regeneration to 40%”)

Woodland Management Objectives and Strategy

To bring the woodland back into good condition and productive management through a programme of coppicing and thinning in combination with deer management. To develop and improve the bio-diversity value of the woods within the local environment, with particular regard to localised features of high ecological value. To reinstate coppice management wherever appropriate. To strategically use fencing to protect coppice and natural regeneration. To open up the ride system and increase the amount of open space within the woods. To produce high quality timber sustainably by implementing an appropriate thinning regime. To looking after standing crops at minimal net cost. To conserve and enhance the landscape value of the woodlands and to preserve all earthworks and archaeological features, including opening up of such features. To retain both standing and fallen dead wood where appropriate. To protect veteran trees and ensure the future presence of over-mature specimens. To maintain public rights of way.

Deer Management Objectives and Strategy

To maintain deer populations in balance with the woodland and the wider countryside To increase fallow cull rates significantly to enable a reduction in the population of at least 50% over the next 5 years. To bring Reeves Muntjac into the culling regime, culling all animals when it is safe and humane to do so. To continue to monitor and assess the effects of the deer control To maintain and improve the network of high seats, open rides, glades and deer lawns to increase opportunities for safe shots to be taken. To participate in Deer Initiative activities including coordinated culling days and to actively support any more formal local deer management group. To train all deer stalkers to level DSC 2. To education staff and the public as to the need for deer management.

3.3 Other management objectives that may influence deer management

An objective of the Buffer Land is provide an important recreational and amenity resource resulting in very substantial public access and opportunities for contact. The improvement of the ASNW areas is also an important management objective. Thus the management of deer will need to take account of these.

3.4 What are perceived obstacles to achieving objectives?

Fallow deer have an important status and position in the history and culture of Epping Forest. They are greatly enjoyed by the residents of the Forest and its visitors. These considerations must be taken into account when undertaking the culling of deer and every opportunity must be taken to inform the general public about the reason for culling deer.

Cost of implementing an initial coordinated reduction cull.

The resident fallow deer population crosses many ownership boundaries, which complicates the effective control of the herd.

Page 181

3.5 Identify actions for removing obstacles

There is a pressing need for local landowners to co-operate in the management of the fallow herd. Without a coordinated approach to management it is going to prove difficult to achieve cull targets. Every effort will be made to persuade surrounding landowners to take part in collaborative deer management and Dr. Jochen Langbein’s recommendations for an extended Deer Management Group should be pursued.

Funding opportunities for deer management should be explored with the Forestry Commission (Woodland Improvement Grant).

3.6 Confirm species distribution and minimum numbers present

Fallow are present throughout the Buffer Land woodland and in the wider countryside extending north towards Harlow and east towards Chelmsford. Census of Fallow deer populations have been carried out on Epping Forest for over 100 years, with more detailed counts from 1980 to the present day (Dr. Jochen Langbein’s reports 1996, 2007 and 2009 and for latest counts 2009 to 2012 see Appendices 4 and 6 respectively. In 2012, 325 fallow including 10 bucks and 41 Muntjac were counted. The peak of fallow population appears to be 488 in 1996. There had been a dramatic quadrupling of fallow population between 1992 and 1996.

The estimates of the Reeves Muntjac population has not been recorded as consistently as the fallow probably because of its small stature and lack of historic association with Epping Forest as well as its ability to remain hidden in the smallest of cover. The first sighting of Muntjac in the Forest was in 1967 and by the early 1970’s they had established themselves in the locality. In 1996, 12 were recorded on the annual count. In 2009 this had risen to 29 and the count of 2012 produced 41. It is certain that this is a gross under estimate of the Muntjac population across the Buffer Land and from experiences of other Estates in East Anglia this figure could easily be increased many fold. It is estimated to be at least in the range of 100 to 150, on the basis of sightings when undertaking the woodland surveying for the Woodland Management Plan: Muntjac were seen across the whole holding.

3.7 Identify potential collaboration with neighbours

The fallow herd can only be controlled through co-operation with neighbours and one of the main objectives of this management plan will be to work more closely with neighbours in order to take part in collaborative management.

Dr. Jochen Langbein in his report of 2009 makes recommendations for the creation of an extended deer management group and every effort, with the help of the Deer Initiative, will be made to bring this to fruition.

3.8 Identify carcass handling routes to marketing

Carcass handling and marketing – to be completed as part of discussion of the draft.

3.9 Identify need for training or development

The objective is to have all stalkers trained to a level of DSC 2. A programme of training will be implemented to achieve this objective. Deer management will be conducted as prescribed in the Deer Initiative’s Deer Best Practise Guide.

Page 182 4. Cull plan

4.1 Cull species To be determined by stalking contract negotiations

Species Fallow Muntjac R R R R Season Target Actual M Target Actual M Target Actual M Target Actual M I I I I F M J F M J F M J F M J F M J F M J F M J F M J 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Comments Page 183 Muntjac will be culled on sight whenever safe and humane to do so. Experience gained from other Estates across East Anglia shows that it would not be difficult to achieve a cull of between 30 and 50. The Fallow population needs to be substantially reduced if the woodland management objectives are to be achieved. Thus the first two years will be a reduction cull, with an objective of reducing Fallow numbers by 50% over the next 5 years. Annual day time counts will continue.

4.2 What other actions are necessary to support/replace culling?

Action

Establishment of deer glades: There are a number of existing glades but further Fencing: All coppiced areas will be protected with fencing. work will be carried out to open up more glades.

Ride management: The ride system will be managed to create clear site lines to Training: All deer stalkers to be trained to level DSC 2. enable a more effective management of the deer.

Communication & Education: Staff and public to be informed and educated Erection of high seats: Additional high seats will be acquired to assist with the where possible and appropriate. management of deer. 5. Monitoring

5.1 How will achievement of the objectives be measured?

Monitoring Objective or Method of Who is Use of Indicator period and issue assessment responsible information frequency

Deer seen To decide on Deer numbers/ on a daily Day time Owner/Stalker future culling Density basis Once a year counts levels

Damage to Monitoring of To decide on Impacts vegetation activity and Annually HB future culling

damage level

Increase To decide on Accurate Cull figures Cull levels Annually Stalker/HB future culling record keeping level

Collaboratio n with surrounding To decide on Accurate Owner/Stalker Other cull data owners Annually future culling record keeping /HB level

Comments

HB - Harry Barnett

Stalker – Cobbins Brook Deer Management Group.

6. Health & Safety issues

Stalkers

All stalkers are to have received training and have the DSC Level 1 and Level 2 qualifications plus adequate Third party insurance cover. Risk assessments must be carried out and agreed for all stalking and maintenance activities, by the landowner and the stalker. A suggested template is included in Appendix1. This is purely a draft that must be adapted for each landowner/stalkers needs and should not be considered as definitive.

All high seats will be checked annually and the checks recorded. Suggested templates for both metal and wooden seats are included in Appendix 2 and 3 respectively. These are purely a draft that must be adapted for each landowner/stalkers needs and should not be considered as definitive.

Staff, Estate workers, tenants and visitors

All non-shooting personnel should be made aware of all culling activities in their areas of interest.

Public Rights of Way and Permissive Access

All stalkers must have knowledge of the location of all PROWs and permissive access routes and areas so to give these full consideration when stalking.

Page 184 Trespass

Stalkers to be aware of regular trespass areas which may need to be avoided. Only safe shots are ever to be taken.

Deer Best Practice Guides England and Wales

All deer management activities shall comply with The Deer Initiatives Deer Best practice Guides and a copy should be made available for all stalking personnel.

7. Cost Implications

7.1 One off or capital costs E.g. Deer Fencing, new larder

Deer fencing and high seats are the main one off costs and grant aid will be sought to fund them. Grant aid will also be sought to contribute to the cost of stalker time, ride creation and to provide for exclosure plots in non-coppice woodland to facilitate the monitoring of impact and damage levels.

7.2 On going costs E.g. Ride maintenance

Ride maintenance and management will be an on-going cost.

Monitoring – Deer Impact and Activity assessment annually.

7.3 Estimated income E.g rental income

Not applicable.

8. Appendices (if available)

Appendix 1: Risk Assessment Template for Woodland Stalking Appendix 2: Annual Inspection Form Template for Metal High Seats Appendix 3: Annual Inspection Form Template for Wooden High Seats Appendix 4: Dr. Jochen Langbein’s Deer Count and Management Reports of 1996, 2007 and 2009 Appendix 5: Buffer Land Species List Appendix 6: Deer Day time Deer Counts 2009 to 2012 Appendix 7: Compartment and Boundary Maps

NB – Only Appendices 1 to 3 are included within the draft Deer Management Plan as information for the others is already held by the City of London. The full set of documents will be submitted with the DMP to the Forestry Commission.

Page 185

Page 186 Version Mar 2009

For Further Information :

The Deer Initiative, P O Box 2196, Wrexham, LL14 6YH

Tel : 0870 774 3677 Fax : 0870 774 3688

Email : [email protected] Website: www.thedeerinitiative.co.uk

Page 187 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 188 Agenda Item 14

Committee(s): Date(s): Item no. Epping Forest and Commons 10 September 2012 Subject: Public The current purpose and management of the Epping Forest Deer Sanctuary, Theydon Bois Report of: For Information Superintendent of Epping Forest SEF 27/12

Summary

This report informs your Committee of the history and the current management of the Epping Forest deer sanctuary, an enclosed area of Buffer Land situated to the south west of Theydon Bois, which was purchased at a cost of £5,500 (£101,420 at 2011 prices) especially for this purpose. The Conservators of Epping Forest have maintained and operated a deer sanctuary at Theydon Bois since 1959, principally to protect the Epping Forest Fallow deer herd, which was felt to be in danger of widespread loss in the face of rapid urbanisation adjacent to the Forest; the rise of the motor car; and the changing patterns of Forest leisure use. The Sanctuary has also sought to preserve the black or melanistic variety of Fallow deer which was reputedly introduced to the Forest in the 1600s or earlier. Over the past 53 years, this approach, supported by selective culling has maintained a core herd of the melanistic variety within the sanctuary, while the continuing influx of the common strain of Fallow deer into the Forest and adjoining Buffer Lands, has seen the previous dominance of the melanistic strain markedly decline. The current management of the deer sanctuary requires significant staff resources to support its successful operation. The current average income from venison sales of £3,000/annum does not fully meet the £11,200 costs of management. Your officers are currently assessing opportunities to improve income streams and are cooperating with international research to properly assess the significance of the melanistic Fallow deer herd. A further report on options for long term management will be made during 2013..

Recommendations I recommend that i. this report be received. ii. a further report on the future management of the Epping Forest deer sanctuary is brought to your Committee once the results of historical research have been received and the outcome of the English Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS) application is known. Page 189

Main Report

Background 1. Fallow deer ( Dama dama ) are known to have been present in the Royal Forest of Waltham, of which Epping Forest was a part, since the late Middle Ages. Fallow deer have several forms which are defined by their coat colour, referred to as a pelage. Typical colours include the:

i. common – a tawny yellow colour dappled with spots – the source of the ‘fallow’ name; ii. brown; iii. melanistic - black; iv. menil - a paler version of the common form; v. blue - essentially a grey form and vi. Leucistic - white (but not abino).

2. Traditionally, the preponderance of particular pelage colours in herds was thought to reflect the emergence of particular strains or races which are genetically stable. Recent research suggests pelage colour does not breed true and that genetic isolation through imparking and the culling preferences of park owners may play a more significant role in the emergence of a dominant pelage colour.

3. The history of Fallow deer in Epping Forest is well documented by Verderers’ Court Records; observations by historical commentators and regular reports to your Committee during the City of London’s stewardship. Over time significant comment has been reserved for what was considered to be Epping Forest’s famous black or melanistic deer herd.

4. At outlined in a short history in Appendix 1, there is some evidence to suggest that the melanistic herd at Epping Forest was established from a Norwegian variety of Fallow deer introduced by James I. This melanistic variety has been romantically identified by some observers as ‘the old Forest breed’ of Fallow deer. Heavy poaching had reduced deer numbers from a typical range of 300-400 in the medieval Royal Forest to just 10 by 1860 and 13 in 1878. Under the Conservator’s control numbers grew to 270 by 1902, but fell standing at around 150 for the first half of the 20 th Century.

5. Although the original reports outlining the reasons for the decline in deer numbers have been lost, Superintendent Alfred Qvist writing in 1971 pointed to the movement of deer away from the Forest woodlands to the quieter estate woodlands North of the Forest. This was attributed to the growing urbanisation of the areas surrounding Epping Forest and the changing pattern of visitor use, especially the growth of dog walking, together with the growth of motor cars and the consequent increase in Deer Vehicles Collisions (DVCs) on local roads. Page 190

6. By 1954, a significant decline in the Epping deer population to 67 animals had prompted your Committee to consider a series of contingency plans including the creation by gift of a second melanistic deer herd at Whipsnade in 1956 and the purchase in 1959 of 35 hectares (88 acres) of land at Theydon Bois to form a dedicated deer sanctuary. A further 9 hectares (24 acres) of woodland, would eventually be combined with the deer sanctuary in 1980. See appendix 2.

7. At the same time there was a wider discussion in post-war Britain regarding the growth of the ‘Leisure Society’ and the new pressures this would bring to the Countryside, Michael Dower writing in ‘The Fourth Wave’ (1965) warned of a ‘wave’ of leisure following industrialisation; railways and car- based suburbs driven by a ‘battalion of cars’. Such dystopian prophecies undoubtedly reinforced the importance of a deer sanctuary away from the Forest’s obligations to the new age of leisure.

8. What is less well understood is whether the concerns of the time related to the entire loss of deer from the Forest or fundamentally the loss of the melanistic bloodline particularly associated with Epping Forest.

9. A significant component of the management of the deer sanctuary is the wide ranging restrictions on public access. These restrictions were created to protect the deer from the concerns of the time and the necessity to purchase land that could be operated outside the Epping Forest Acts 1878 and 1880. In placing the deer sanctuary outside the stated purposes of the Acts, the continued operation of the current arrangements will create challenges for the Conservators with regard to its legal status.

Current Position 10. The management of the sanctuary requires a significant level of staff resources to be made available. An annual cull is set in order to maintain herd size, sex ratio and to control any deer born with alternative colouring to the preferred black (melanistic) colour type. The annual cull for a herd of 100 needs to be in the order of 40 animals (Langbein 1996), and as stated in the 9 July 2012 report to your Committee (Deer Management on the Buffer lands) each deer culled requires 0.5 staff days.

11. Welfare checks on the herd are to be carried out at least every other day and periodic checks on the integrity of the perimeter fence are essential. Staff are also required to carry out supplementary feeding of the deer, from September through until the end of March, depending on the weather conditions, usually being three times a week. There is also a requirement for some grassland management to take place in the form of grass topping, harrowing and rolling, this can be carried out by in house staff if resources allow otherwise contractors need to be engaged to carry out the works.

Page 191

12. Currently the post cull herd in the sanctuary is approximately 140 head plus a fawn drop of approximately 35. It is difficult to obtain an accurate count as the herd tends to form into large groups whenever approached or stressed (Langbein 1996). The current management of the deer sanctuary is the responsibility of the Head Forest Keeper and the day to day management is carried out by a Forest Keeper from the Northern team who have specialist skills in this area. The Keeper is assisted with winter feeding, fence checking and other tasks by the Northern Forest Keepers or other Forest Keepers as required.

13. The annual cull within the sanctuary is set by the Head Forest Keeper and the current aim is to reduce the herd size back to 100 head post cull as previously agreed by your Committee following the recommendations in a report commissioned in 1996 (Langbein 1996). This would require an annual cull in 2012/13 of 75 deer which would be difficult to achieve in a single year. The cull of 62 deer carried out in 2011/12 was probably as high as can be realistically achieved with the resources available. Therefore a cull of a minimum of sixty has been set for this year with the surplus being taken in the 2013/14 cull.

14. The annual cull is currently carried out by two Northern Forest Keepers who are fully qualified and trained to carry out the task. The City of London supplies Keepers with the necessary equipment and an agreed programme of training enabling them to carry out this task in a professional and humane manner. Epping Forest does not have any in-house chiller facilities to store the carcasses resulting from the cull. Cold storage is provided by the use of a chiller owned by one of the Forest Keepers that carry out the cull in the sanctuary. The chiller is registered with the local Environmental Health and is inspected by them on a regular basis.

15. A study of the DNA of the deer within the sanctuary is currently being carried out as part of a study funded by Arts and Humanities Research Council through Nottingham and Durham Universities into the origin of Historical Fallow deer herds in European Society 6000 BC – 1600 AD. Tongue tip samples from deer culled during 2011/12 and from the forthcoming 2012/13 cull are sent off for DNA analysis. The reason for using the tip of the tongue is that only one sample can be sent from each deer, there is no chance of replication. The initial outcome of this study should be presented in March 2013.

16. A visit to Whipsnade Zoo has taken place and found that the small herd of black fallow have been retained as a pure bred herd from the original 1955/6 deer presented to them. A return visit the sanctuary at Theydon Bois by Whipsnade staff is proposed and it is hoped that they will also participate in the Nottingham and Durham Universities study to help find out if indeed the deer are a true old established strain of melanistic Fallow deer. Page 192

17. Melanistic deer herds are also found at Haldon Forest Park, Devon; Levens Hall Park, Cumbria; Parham Estate, West Sussex; The Trentham Estate, Staffordshire; Packington Estate, Warwickshire; Powderham Castle, Devon; Raby Castle, County Durham.

18. Gaunt’s Wood and Red Oak Wood, two areas of woodland within the sanctuary which have been fenced off since their replanting are included in the proposed EWGS application which is the subject of another report to your Committee 10 September 2012. The scheme would see a controlled reintroduction of the deer herd into these areas.

19. Although there is no public access to the sanctuary Forest Keepers regularly accompany groups and individuals on guided tours, about 25 groups in 2011. There is also a demand for the filming and photography opportunities the sanctuary can offer; not only of the deer but other wildlife as it is virtually undisturbed due to the limited access.

Options 20. There are a number of options available to your Committee ranging from closure of the sanctuary to the maintenance of its operation with different levels of herd numbers. As information regarding the significance of the current melanistic herd is not available, it is suggested that the current management approach is maintained until the management objective for the deer sanctuary can be more clearly articulated.

Proposals 21. I therefore propose that the current management of the deer sanctuary be continued until such time that the results of the comparative DNA study by Nottingham and Durham University are available; further historical research on the origins of the deer sanctuary are undertaken and the outcome of the EWGS application along with the resulting management changes are known. At this point the purposes and management of the deer sanctuary should be reviewed to determine whether the deer sanctuary still fulfils the purposes for which it was created.

Implications

Financial Implications 22. Maintaining a herd of deer in a sanctuary requires a considerable amount of resources and deer culling is a surprisingly labour-intensive activity. It is estimated that deer culling activity requires 0.5 staff days per deer culled. With an annual cull of 60 deer in 2012/13 this equates to 30 staff-days. Another 25 staff days are required for other management tasks such as winter feeding, welfare checks and fence inspections etc. This equates to a cost of approximately £6,200 per annum and represents a competing demand on the resources of the Forest Keeper service. Other routine costs include the purchase of feed and ammunition, together with occasional Page 193

expenditure associated with the provision of rifles, specialist clothing, high seats and training, this is financed from local risk budgets amounting to approximately £5,000 per annum. These costs are set against income from carcass sales. At an average carcass weight of deer from the sanctuary of 25kgs, with a ten year average value of £2 per kilo; an income of averaging approximately £3,000 per annum can be expected.

23. The venison industry is a product of deer management, reflecting on the continuing low demand amongst UK consumers, currently venison prices are low and stand in real terms, at about 50% of the price in 1980, although prices have tentatively improved recently. The sale of venison therefore tends to only defray some of the costs of deer management, rather than to provide a positive cost incentive for active management.

24. Work by the East of England Deer Initiative on venison marketing is currently being assessed to ascertain whether additional income can be obtained through direct branded sales of venison.

Legal Implications 25. Under section 4 of the Epping Forest Act 1878, deer on Forest Land are the property of the Conservators ‘to be preserved as objects of ornament in the Forest’. It is unclear whether this protection was extended simply because of the fall in deer numbers, or the importance placed upon the melanistic form, or indeed both factors.

26. Outside the Forest, deer are wild animals, or ferae naturae under common law, and are not owned by anyone. In England and Wales, the landowner has the right to kill or take game on his or her land. The landowner may also extend authority, known as ‘permission’, to other people without restriction provided they observe the law in terms of close seasons.

27. The hunting of deer in England and Wales and the sale and purchase of venison is controlled by the Deer Act 1991. The close seasons for Fallow deer hunting is 1 May to 31 July inclusive for bucks and 1 April to 31 October inclusive for does, though as an enclosed herd there is no specific ‘close season’.

28. The conveyance for the 58 acre of land from Mark Gerald Edward North Buxton contains a pre-emption for the benefit of the vendor and his successors to repurchase the land in the event of a future proposal to sell it by the City.

29. The conveyance also contains a restrictive covenant prohibiting any building to be erected same for agricultural buildings for use in connection with use as a deer sanctuary, the elevation and the position of which can be approved by the vendor or his successor. Page 194

Conclusion 30. The Conservators of Epping Forest have maintained and operated a deer sanctuary at Theydon Bois since 1959 most probably to preserve the melanistic variety of Fallow deer which was reputedly introduced to the Forest in the 1600s or earlier. Over the past 53 years, this approach, supported by selective culling has maintained a core herd of the melanistic variety within the sanctuary, while the continuing influx of the common strain of Fallow deer into the Forest and adjoining Buffer Lands, has seen the dominance of the melanistic strain markedly decline.

31. The significance of the melanistic variety of Fallow deer both across UK deer populations and in terms of historical continuity is currently unclear. It would seem sensible to continue with the current management of the deer sanctuary in the short term in order to preserve that melanistic strain and to work more closely with Whipsnade Zoo.

32. In the longer term, the publication of the comparative DNA study by Nottingham and Durham Universities into the origin of historical Fallow deer herds in the UK should provide clarity on the significance of the work of the sanctuary, providing an objective viewpoint against which the costs and continuing purpose of the deer sanctuary scheme can be properly reviewed.

Appendices

Appendix 1 A history of Fallow deer in Epping Forest Appendix 2 A map of the deer sanctuary

Contact: K French | [email protected] | 02085325310

Page 195

Appendix 1 – A History of Fallow deer in Epping Forest – John Holtom

1. Thomas Bewick in his 1790 ‘General History of the Quadrupeds’ suggests that King James I stocked his chases at Enfield and Epping with a distinctive melanistic (dark) coated ‘Norwegian’ variety of Fallow deer provided by his Father-in-law the King of Demark, from a herd which were originally established in Scotland. However, it is now known that this melanistic variety was present much earlier in Windsor Great Park with records dating back to 1465.

2. Some observers including Edward North Buxton have romantically believed that this melanistic variety of Fallow deer represented “the old forest breed” of Fallow deer being distinctively small in size; of a uniformly dark colour and possessing very attenuated antlers.

3. Fallow deer numbers in Epping Forest have fluctuated considerably over the last 150 years. Buxton suggests that overall numbers fell to as low as 10 animals in 1860. Following the Epping Forest Acts of 1878 and 1880 deer numbers began to increase from the 12 does and 1 buck quoted by Alfred Qvist and by 1902 they were up to about 270. During the 1920s deer numbers halved again, however, since the 1940s annual counts recorded well above 100.

4. However, by the 1950s concerns were being expressed with regard to deer numbers in Epping Forest. A report to your Committee of 8 March 1954 a deer count carried out by Forest Keepers, following a recent fall of snow, showed that the Fallow deer population in Epping Forest had fallen to just 67 animals. The decline in numbers was attributed to uncontrolled dogs and road fatalities. At this time most of the deer were living in the north of the Forest preferring the relatively peaceful areas away from public usage.

5. At the Forestal Sub-Committee meeting of 19 March 1954, reference was made to the newly formed Nature Conservancy, a forerunner of today’s Natural England, being approached with regard to the future protection of deer within Epping Forest, though the Committee did not expect any financial assistance from the Conservancy. The Committee resolved that the only way to preserve the deer numbers was to enclose land. The Comptroller and City Solicitor (C&CS) reported that for the purpose of providing a ‘deer park’ sanctuary for the herd of Forest deer, the Conservators had no power to enclose Forest Land, but the Corporation could purchase private land without public access from City’s Cash for this express purpose.

6. Following this resolution, the Superintendent investigated possible sites and firstly looked at both Copped Hall and Woodredon. No agreement could be reached with the appropriate owners. Following these discussions, Lt. Col. E N Buxton, the owner of Birch Hall, Theydon Bois approached the Page 196

Superintendent. as he had already held discussions with the Nature Conservancy and others in respect of enclosing land to form a deer sanctuary.

7. During 1955 and 1956, a small herd of the melanistic Fallow deer were presented to Whipsnade Zoo as a means of providing a separate complementary gene pool for future years should the Forest herd numbers be exposed to an unexpected loss.

8. On the 12 June 1959, 88 acres of farmland, formerly part of the Birch Hall Estate (See Appendix1), were purchased at a cost of £5,500 (£101,420 at 2010 prices) from Mark Gerald Edward North Buxton, including 12 acres of fields to the west of the current enclosure. Adjoining the 88 acres, were a further 24 acres of woodland known as Gaunt’s Wood and Red Oak Wood. This woodland was held on a 21 year lease by the same land owner in order that valuable timber on that land could be harvested in the future.

9. The whole area was enclosed with deer fencing and deer leaps built into the perimeter, these allowed deer to enter the sanctuary but they were unable to leave the sanctuary. During the first years some of the land within the sanctuary was still farmed for corn and other crops, the meadows within the sanctuary were also used to graze cattle until such time as the deer numbers had built up to a sufficient level. The intention was to maintain a post cull herd of approximately 100 animals comprising of 50 does, 34 fawns, 6 prickets and 6 Bucks.

10. In 1962 byelaws relating to the deer sanctuary were made by the Conservators of Epping Forest under Section 17 of the City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1959. Additional Bye-Laws were made in 1965 using the City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1963.

11. Your Committee also witnessed the release in the deer sanctuary of a melanistic Fallow deer buck provided from the Whipsnade herd.

12. During 1985 the two areas of woodland, forming part of the sanctuary, Gaunt’s Wood and Red Oak Wood (see Appendix 1) were clear felled under licence. Once this operation was complete on 11 May1987 the 24 acres of land costing £3,700, were conveyed to the City of London. Replanting took place in 1987/88 under the Broadleaved Woodland Grant Scheme of the Forestry Commission. The total area replanted was 12.6 acres with the largest open ground areas of 1.5 acres. A total of 5600 trees were planted comprising 4500 oak and 100 of each of the following Field Maple, Alder, Hornbeam, Ash Aspen, Cherry, Mountain Ash, Wild Service, White beam, Lime and Crab Apple. Unfortunately deer grazed over the trees and replanting had to be carried out and the woodland fenced off leaving 66 acres of grassland for deer grazing, this included the pond and the surrounding trees. Page 197

13. From the 31 October 2008 59.3 acres of the grassland within the sanctuary were included in the Entry Level Scheme (ELS) agri-environment scheme using the EK3 option (Permanent grassland with very low input). This resulted in 3602.5 points being added to the total Forest ELS score. Restrictions on the feeding of the deer imposed by the rules of the ELS scheme had been overlooked and in 2012 an area of 3.1 acres and the sites of 7 feeding posts were taken out of the ELS with the loss of 190.5 points.

Page 198 Page 199 This page is intentionally left blank Page 200 Agenda Item 16

Committee(s): Date(s): Item no. Epping Forest and Commons 10 September 2012 Subject: Public City Commons Trustee’s Annual report and Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 March 2012 Report of: For Information The Chamberlain

Summary

The Trustee’s Annual Report and Financial Statements for the Year Ended 31 March 2012 for Ashtead Common and West Wickham Common and Spring Park Wood Coulsdon and Other Commons, which together form the City Commons, are presented in the format required by the Charity Commission. Recommendations • It is recommended that the Trustees Annual Reports and Financial Statements be noted.

Main Report

3. Much of the information contained within the Annual Report and Financial Statements has already been presented to your Committee via budget and outturn reports.

Contact: Alison Elam | [email protected] | 020 7332 1081

Page 201 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 202

ASHTEAD COMMON

REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2012 Charity Number: 1051510

Page 203 ASHTEAD COMMON

Trustee’s Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

Contents Page

Trustee’s Annual Report 2-8

Independent Auditor’s Report 9-10

Statement of Financial Activities 11

Balance Sheet 12

Notes to the Financial Statements 13-20

PageA1-1 204 ASHTEAD COMMON Trustee’s Annual report for the year ended 31 March 2012

1. Reference and Administration Details Charity Name: Ashtead Common

Registered Charity Number: 1051510

Principal Address: Guildhall, London EC2P 2EJ

Trustee: The Mayor, Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London

Chief Executive: The Town Clerk of the City of London Corporation

Treasurer: The Chamberlain of London

Solicitor: The Comptroller and City Solicitor

Banker: Lloyds TSB Bank plc City Office, PO Box 72 Bailey Drive Gillingham, Kent ME8 OLS

Auditor: Deloitte LLP Chartered Accountants and Statutory Auditor 2 New Street Square London EC4A 3BZ

2. Structure, Governance and Management The Governing Document and constitution of the charity The Governing Document is the Corporation of London (Open Spaces) Act 1878. The charity is constituted as a charitable trust.

Trustee Selection methods The Mayor, Commonalty and Citizens of London known as the City of London Corporation is the Trustee of Ashtead Common. Elected Aldermen and Members of the City of London Corporation are appointed to the committee governing Ashtead Common by the Court of Common Council of the City of London Corporation.

Policies and procedures for the induction and training of trustee The City of London Corporation makes available to its Members seminars and briefings on various aspects of the City’s activities, including those concerning Ashtead Common, as it considers necessary to enable the Members to efficiently carry out their duties.

PageA1-2 205 ASHTEAD COMMON Trustee’s Annual report for the year ended 31 March 2012

Details of related parties and wider networks Details of any related party transactions are disclosed in Note 12 of the Notes to the Financial Statements.

3. Objectives and Activities for the Public Benefit The Trustee has due regard to the Charity Commission’s public benefit guidance when setting objectives and planning activities.

The Ashtead Common Charity was established under the Corporation of London (Open Spaces) Act 1878 which states that the purpose of the charity is the preservation of the common at Ashtead for the recreation and enjoyment of the public.

Almost the entire open space is designated as a National Nature Reserve and Site of Special Scientific Interest.

Past land use has influenced the common, creating its rich ecological and cultural diversity. Today it is an important amenity resource for local people, who use the site for a variety of informal recreational and educational activities. Local people are actively encouraged to become involved as volunteers in all aspects of managing the common.

PageA1-3 206 ASHTEAD COMMON Trustee’s Annual report for the year ended 31 March 2012

This charity is operated as part of the City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash. The City Corporation is committed to fund the ongoing net operational costs of the charity in accordance with the purpose which is the preservation of the common at Ashtead for the recreation and enjoyment of the public.

4. Achievements and Performance

Significant developments for 2011/12

Ashtead Common is managed as part of the City Commons Division of the Open Spaces Department. In addition to managing the Ashtead Common charity, the City Commons Division is also responsible for the West Wickham Common and Spring Park Woods charity, and the Coulsdon and other Commons charity. Financial reporting arrangements reflect the fact that these charities are separate and distinct entities, with separate Sundry Trust reports produced for the Ashtead and the West Wickham and Coulsdon Commons charities. However, practical site management and service delivery considerations dictate that the division is managed as a single unit, and the individual charities benefit from the efficiencies that this economy of scale provides.

A Divisional Plan sets strategy and management objectives for the division as a whole, which are then cascaded to the individual site management plans for the Commons.

At the heart of the Ashtead Common Management Plan is the recognition that 3 core elements, namely service provision, site protection and efficient service delivery, need to be fully integrated. The Management Plan reflects the requirement of the Corporation of London (Open Spaces) Act 1878 (the Governing Document) to protect the open space in perpetuity.

The introduction of a combined Entry Level and Higher Level Stewardship Scheme has significantly advanced the capacity of the City Commons Division to deliver an effective and sustainable programme of conservation management projects across the 7 commons. Referred to as the Environmental Stewardship Scheme (ESS), the agreement with Natural England was signed on 21 March 2011 for implementation from April 2011 onwards and covering a period of 10 years. ESS provides incentive payments to manage land to protect or restore habitats by compartmentalising areas into various options, each of which has its own management prescription. In addition to this there are various capital projects which are designed to seed the programme and are funded for 3 years.

Ashtead Common was awarded a capital payment to implement the veteran oak pollard management programme. Approximately 350 trees were scheduled to have work undertaken during the autumn and winter months. The bulk of this programme was completed in 2011/12 and any outstanding work will be carried forward to the autumn 2012.

The footpath that runs behind Broadhurst (Footpath Number 35) was opened up to horse riders and cyclists and surfaced using natural materials, making it accessible year round. This work was completed following a review of the footpath surfacing policy by the Ashtead Common Consultative Committee and a period of public consultation. This project in effect completes a missing link in the surfaced ride network to join the Woodfield section of Bridleway 33, with Concessionary Ride 2 at Overdale.

PageA1-4 207 ASHTEAD COMMON Trustee’s Annual report for the year ended 31 March 2012

Volunteering across the Commons continues to flourish, with 6 directly supported groups undertaking work across all 7 open spaces; the Ashtead Common Volunteers, New Hillbillies (Farthing Downs and New Hill), Kenley Volunteers, Coulsdon Common Volunteers, Riddlesdown Volunteers and WWaSP’s (West Wickham and Spring Park). These groups were helped by volunteers from the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV), Croydon Conservation Volunteers and a number of corporate volunteers groups to achieve a total of over 10,000 volunteer hours (this year the figure excludes Surrey Archaeological Society volunteers who contributed 1,000 hours to the Roman Villa Project). The division continues to support BTCV, and the Lower Mole and Downlands Countryside Management Projects to promote volunteering and champion local strategic partnerships.

The annual archaeological investigation work on the Roman Villa was again timed to coincide with the national Heritage Weekend event. Over the course of 2 days approximately 240 people attended a series of guided walks to the Villa. The work undertaken by the charity was also promoted at Ashtead’s annual Village Day event.

The diversity of the Commons and extended catchment of 7 Open Spaces spread over a 30 mile area makes City Commons ideally placed to offer an exciting and varied programme of interpretative activities. During the year the Division provided over 50 walks, talks and events on subjects as varied as tunnels under Riddlesdown, the Romans and star gazing. The division also facilitated a number of educational events during the course of the year, some of which were licensed activities and some that were directly led by the ranger team. Licences were issued on 60 occasions to local groups for organised events, visits and educational activities on the Commons.

Key targets for 2011/12 and review of achievement

The key targets for 2011/12 together with their outcomes were:

• Extend grazing – Increase the size of Phoenix Field to expand the grazing in the North- West corner of the Common. Despite a setback of the death of 3 cattle in May, rangers and volunteers pressed on to achieve the planned grazing of Phoenix and Birch Fields. • Visitor Survey – Undertake visitor surveys across all 7 Commons to establish the target audience and provide the base line information necessary to promote our services and enable access for all. The first year of this project has been completed. Figures suggest that around 193,000 visits to Ashtead Common are made a year. • Biodiversity Conservation – Incorporate Higher Level Stewardship Scheme management options into the annual work Programme. Options were incorporated and work on the first year of the programme was completed. • Heritage Conservation – Develop a 10 year programme for protecting, conserving and promoting scheduled monuments and historic environments. Heritage Conservation Plans have been produced for all 7 commons and the work programme has been adjusted to reflect the priorities these have highlighted.

PageA1-5 208 ASHTEAD COMMON Trustee’s Annual report for the year ended 31 March 2012

A review of other achievements:

• Retention of the Green Flag Award and Green Heritage Site Award status. • Community and stakeholder involvement was encouraged through the Ashtead Common Consultative Committee which met twice during the year. • A herd of 8 cattle grazed the scrub grassland areas and had completed grazing by September. • Successional vegetation was managed along rides, footpaths and firebreaks to establish open grassy edges. • Second small mammal survey was conducted in November. • Work commenced on a reptile survey. • The Common hosted the annual Ashtead Common 10k run in September. • Volunteer numbers increased significantly during the year.

All of the above achievements enhanced the Open Space for the benefit of the public.

5. Financial Review Review of financial position Income of £13,001 was received from the Barratt Bequest Trust which ceased to exist on 23 December 2011, (2010/11: £20,414), £78,560 from grants (2010/11: £nil), £792 from donations (2010/11: £674), £32 from the sale of goods, products and materials (2010/11: £13,237), £1,565 from fees and charges (2010/11: £458) and £265 from licences (2010/11: £265). No income was received from other grants in 2011/12 (2010/11: £900). The contribution towards running costs of the charity amounted to £452,499 (2010/11: £526,323). This cost was met by the City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash.

Reserves Policy The charity is wholly supported by the City of London Corporation which is committed to maintain and preserve Ashtead Common out of its City’s Cash Funds. These Funds are used to meet the deficit on running expenses on a year by year basis. Consequently, this charity has no free reserves and a reserves policy is therefore inappropriate.

Investment Policy The charity itself has no underlying supporting funds or investments and therefore there is no investment policy.

Going Concern The Trustee considers the Common to be a going concern as detailed in note 1(b) of the accounting policies.

PageA1-6 209 ASHTEAD COMMON Trustee’s Annual report for the year ended 31 March 2012

6. Plans for Future Periods The aims for 2012/13 are: • Consultation Strategy – Produce a policy and procedure for consultation about plans and projects to review the list of stakeholders and improve arrangements for local consultative committees. • Visitor Survey – Continue the project aimed at establishing the size and diversity of our audience. • Environmental Stewardship – Continue to incorporate all aspects of the Environmental Stewardship Scheme into the annual work programme. • Marketing and Communication – Develop and implement an improvement plan to share information more effectively. • Education – Develop an improvement plan to promote greater knowledge and understanding of the commons.

7. The Financial Statements The financial statements consist of the following and include comparative figures for the previous year:

The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with statutory requirements and the Statement of Recommended Practice Accounting and Reporting by Charities (Revised 2005).

8. Statement of Trustee’s Responsibilities

The Trustee is responsible for preparing the Trustee’s Report and the financial statements in accordance with applicable law and United Kingdom Accounting Standards (United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice).

PageA1-7 210 ASHTEAD COMMON Trustee’s Annual report for the year ended 31 March 2012

• prepare the financial statements on the going concern basis unless it is inappropriate to presume that the charity will continue in business.

The Trustee is responsible for keeping proper accounting records that disclose with reasonable accuracy at any time the financial position of the charity and to ensure that the financial statements comply with the Charities Act 2011, the Charity (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2008 and the provisions of the charity’s governing documents. It is also responsible for safeguarding the assets of the charity and hence for taking reasonable steps for the prevention and detection of fraud and other irregularities.

9. Adopted and signed for on behalf of the Trustee.

R.A.H. Chadwick Raymond Michael Catt Chairman of Finance Committee Deputy Chairman of Guildhall, London Finance Committee Guildhall, London

PageA1-8 211 ASHTEAD COMMON

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT TO THE TRUSTEE OF ASHTEAD COMMON CHARITY

We have audited the financial statements of Ashtead Common for the year ended 31 March 2012 which comprise the Statement of Financial Activities, the Balance Sheet and the related Notes 1 to 12. The financial reporting framework that has been applied in their preparation is applicable law and United Kingdom Accounting Standards (United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice).

Scope of the audit of the financial statements An audit involves obtaining evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or error. This includes an assessment of: whether the accounting policies are appropriate to the charity’s circumstances and have been consistently applied and adequately disclosed; the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by the trustee; and the overall presentation of the financial statements. In addition, we read all the financial and non-financial information in the annual report to identify material inconsistencies with the audited financial statements. If we become aware of any apparent material misstatements or inconsistencies we consider the implications for our report.

PageA1-9 212 ASHTEAD COMMON

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT TO THE TRUSTEE OF ASHTEAD COMMON CHARITY (CONTINUED)

PageA1-10 213

ASHTEAD COMMON Statement of Financial Activities for the year ended 31 March 2012

Unrestricted Fund

Notes 2011/12 2010/11 £ £ Incoming resources Incoming resources from generated funds Voluntary income 92,353 21,988 Grant from City of London Corporation 452,499 526,323 Incoming resources from charitable activities 1,862 13,960 Total incoming resources 4 546,714 562,271

Resources Expended Charitable activities 501,943 526,618 Governance costs 44,771 35,653 Total resources expended 5 546,714 562,271

Net movement in funds - -

Reconciliation of funds Funds brought forward - - Funds carried forward - -

All operations are continuing.

PageA1-11 214

ASHTEAD COMMON Balance Sheet as at 31 March 2012

Notes 2012 2011 £ £ Current Assets Debtors 9 30,081 12,853 Cash at bank and in hand 4,269 3,967 34,350 16,820

Creditors: Amounts falling due within one year 10 (34,350) (16,820)

Net Current Assets - -

The funds of the charity Unrestricted income fund - - Total charity funds - -

Approved and signed for an on behalf of the Trustee

______Chris Bilsland Chamberlain of London 21 st August 2012

PageA1-12 215 ASHTEAD COMMON Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

1. Accounting policies The following accounting policies have been applied consistently in dealing with items which are considered material in relation to the charity’s financial statements.

(b) Going Concern The governing documents place an obligation on the City of London Corporation to preserve the open space for the benefit of the public. The City of London Corporation is committed to fulfilling this obligation which is reflected through its proactive management of, and ongoing funding for, the services and activities required. The funding is provided from the City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash which annually receives considerable income from its managed funds and property investments. Each year a medium term financial forecast is prepared for City’s Cash. The latest forecast to the period 2015/16 anticipates that adequate funding will be available to enable the Trust to continue to fulfil its obligations. On this basis the Trustee considers the Trust to be a going concern for the foreseeable future.

Ashtead Common comprises 200 hectares (500 acres) of land located in North East Surrey, together with associated buildings. The object of the charity is the preservation of the Common at Ashtead for the recreation and enjoyment of the public. Ashtead Common is considered to be inalienable (i.e. may not be disposed of without specific statutory powers). The land and the original associated buildings are considered to be heritage assets. In respect of the original land and buildings, cost or valuation amounts are not included in these accounts as reliable cost information is not available and a significant cost would be involved in the reconstruction of past accounting records, or in the valuation, which would be onerous compared to the benefit to the users of these accounts.

(d) Incoming Resources Recognition of incoming resources All incoming resources are included in the Statement of Financial Activities gross without deduction of expenses in the financial year in which they are entitled to be received. Voluntary income Voluntary income comprises public donations, government grants and a contribution from the Barratt Bequest which ceased to exist on 23 December 2011 and is included in the Statement of Financial Activities when receivable.

PageA1-13 216 ASHTEAD COMMON Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

Volunteers No amounts are included in the Statement of Financial Activities for services donated by volunteers, as this cannot be quantified. Grants received Grants are included in the Statement of Financial Activities in the financial year in which they are entitled to be received.

Contribution from City’s Cash The City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash meets the deficit on running expenses of the charity and also provides grant funding for certain capital works and this income is recognised in the Statement of Financial Activities when it is due from the City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash.

Rental income Rental income is included in the Charity’s incoming resources for the year.

(g) Cash flow statement The Trust has taken advantage of the exemption in Financial Reporting Standard 1 (Revised) from the requirement to produce a cash flow statement on the grounds that it is a small entity.

(h) Governance costs The nature of costs allocated to Governance is detailed in note 5.

2. Tax Status of the Charity Ashtead Common is a registered charity and as such its income and gains are exempt from income tax to the extent that they are applied to its charitable objectives.

PageA1-14 217 ASHTEAD COMMON Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

3. Indemnity Insurance The City of London Corporation takes out indemnity insurance in respect of all its activities. The charity does not contribute to the cost of that insurance.

4. Incoming Resources Incoming resources are comprised as follows:

2011/12 2010/11 £ £ Incoming Resources from generated Funds Grants 78,560 - Non-Government Grants - 900 Public Donations 792 674 Contribution from Barratt Bequest 13,001 20,414 Grant from City of London Corporation 452,499 526,323 544,852 548,311 Incoming resources from charitable activities Sale of goods, products and materials 32 13,237 Fees and charges 1,565 458 Licences income 265 265 1,862 13,960

Total incoming resources 546,714 562,271

Grants Grants were received from the Rural Payments Agency and Natural England.

Contribution from the Barratt Bequest The income from the remaining endowment of the Barratt Bequest contributed to the running costs of Ashtead Common until 23 December 2011 at which time the Barratt Bequest ceased to exist with all its assets and liabilities being transferred to the Hampstead Heath Trust Fund.

Grant from City of London Corporation The City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash meets the deficit on running expenses of the charity.

PageA1-15 218 ASHTEAD COMMON Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

5. Resources Expended Resources expended are analysed between activities undertaken directly and support costs as follows:

Activities Support undertaken 2011/12 2010/11 costs directly £ £ £ £ Charitable activity Preservation of Ashtead Common 466,468 35,475 501,943 526,618 Governance costs - 44,771 44,771 35,653 Total resources expended 466,468 80,246 546,714 562,271

No resources are expended by third parties to undertake charitable work on behalf of the charity.

Charitable activity Expenditure on the charitable activity includes labour, premises costs, equipment, materials and other supplies and services incurred as the running costs of Ashtead Common.

Governance costs General Governance costs relating to the general running of the charity, rather than specific activities within the charity including strategic planning and costs associated with Trustee meetings. These costs are initially borne by the City of London Corporation and then charged to individual charities on the basis of time spent, as part of support costs, where appropriate.

Trustee’s expenses Members of the City of London Corporation are all unpaid and do not receive allowances in respect of City of London Corporation activities in the City. However, Members may claim travelling expenses in respect of activities outside the City and receive allowances in accordance with a scale when attending a conference or activity on behalf of the City of London Corporation. No expenses were claimed in 2011/12 (2010/11:£Nil).

PageA1-16 219 ASHTEAD COMMON Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

6. Support Costs The cost of administration which includes the salaries and associated costs of officers of the City of London Corporation, together with premises and office expenses, is allocated by the City of London Corporation to the activities under its control, including this charity, on the basis of employee time spent on the respective services. These expenses include the cost of administrative, technical staff and external consultants who work on a number of the City of London Corporation’s activities. Support costs allocated by the City of London Corporation to the charitable activity are derived as follows:

Charitable Governance 2011/12 2010/11 activities £ £ £ £ Department Chamberlain - 13,652 13,652 8,039 Comptroller & City Solicitor - 9,097 9,097 9,535 Open Spaces Directorate 18,871 - 18,871 33,681 Town Clerk - 13,005 13,005 10,551 City Surveyor 4,542 6,956 11,498 10,906 Information Systems 7,355 - 7,355 7,946 Other governance and support costs 4,707 2,061 6,768 6,640 Total support costs 35,475 44,771 80,246 87,298

The main support services provided by the City of London Corporation are: Chamberlain Accounting services, insurance, cashiers, revenue collection, payments, financial systems and internal audit. Comptroller and City Property, litigation, contracts, public law and administration Solicitor of commercial rents and City of London Corporation records. Open Spaces Directorate Expenditure incurred by the Directorate, which is recharged to all Open Spaces Committees under the control of the Director of Open Spaces. The apportionments are calculated on the basis of budget resources available to each Open Spaces charity. Town Clerk Committee administration, management services, personnel services, public relations, printing and stationery, emergency planning. City Surveyor Work undertaken on the management of the Estate properties, surveying services and advice, supervising and administering repairs and maintenance.

PageA1-17 220 ASHTEAD COMMON Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

Information Systems The support and operation of the City of London Corporation’s central and corporate systems on the basis of usage of the systems; the provision of “desktop” and network support services and small IS development projects that might be required by the charity. Other Support and Contribution towards various costs including publishing the Governance Costs annual report and financial statements, central training, the dental service, occupational health, union costs and the environmental and sustainability section.

7. Staff Numbers and Costs The full time equivalent number of staff employed by the City of London Corporation charged to Ashtead Common Trust in 2011/12 is 8 (2010/11:7) at a cost of £267,506 (2010/11: £277,946). The table below sets out the employment costs and the number of full time equivalent staff charged directly to the charity.

Employers' Employers' No of Gross National Pension Total employees Pay Insurance Contribution £ £ £ £

2011/12 Charitable activities 8 216,709 16,753 34,044 267,506 2010/11 Charitable activities 7 221,928 16,911 39,107 277,946

No employees earned more than £60,000 during the year (2010/11: Nil).

8. Heritage Assets Since 1995 the primary purpose of the Charity has been the preservation of Ashtead Common for the recreation and enjoyment of the public. As set out in accounting policy 1(c), the original heritage land and buildings are not recognised in the Financial Statements.

Policies for the preservation and management of Ashtead Common are contained in the Ashtead Common Heritage Conservation Plan 2010. Records of heritage assets owned and maintained by Ashtead Common can be obtained from the Director of Open Spaces at the principal address as set out on page 2.

PageA1-18 221 ASHTEAD COMMON Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

9. Debtors The debtor figure consists of:

2012 2011 £ £ Recoverable VAT 3,160 11,697 Prepayments 1,366 1,156 Other Debtors 25,555 - Total 30,081 12,853

10. Creditors The creditor figure consists of:

2012 2011 £ £ Trade Creditors 2,000 2,396 Accruals 28,232 10,817 Other Creditors 1,000 487 Receipts In Advance 118 120 Sundry Deposits 3,000 3,000 Total 34,350 16,820

11. Pensions The triennial valuation undertaken as at 31 st March 2010 revealed a reduced funding level of 86% (from 87% in 2007). Following this valuation, the contribution rates to be applied for 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14 are 17.5%.

In 2011/12, the total employer’s contributions to the pension fund for staff employed on City’s Cash activities (including Ashtead Common) were £6.0m amounting to 17.5% of pensionable pay (2010/11: £6.5m and 18.5% of pensionable pay).

Although the Pension Fund is a defined benefit scheme, for the purpose of FRS17 City’s Cash (and therefore Ashtead Common) is unable to identify its share of the underlying assets and liabilities. Consequently the pension arrangements are treated as a defined contributions scheme in the City’s Cash and these accounts. The deficit of the scheme calculated in accordance with FRS17 by independent consulting actuaries at 31 March 2012 is £351m (2010/11: £188m).

PageA1-19 222 ASHTEAD COMMON Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

12. Related Party Transactions The following disclosures are made in recognition of the principles underlying Financial Reporting Standard 8 concerning related party transactions.

The City of London Corporation as well as being the Trustee also provides management, surveying and administrative services for the charity. The costs incurred by the City of London Corporation in providing these services are charged to the charity. The City of London Corporation also provides banking services, allocating all transactions to the charity at cost and crediting or charging interest at a commercial rate. The cost of these services is set out in the Statement of Financial Activities under “Resources Expended” and an explanation of these services is set out in Note 6 for support costs of £80,246. The City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash meets the deficit on running expenses of the charity. This amounted to £452,499 as shown in Note 5 to the financial statements.

The City of London Corporation is also the Trustee of a number of other charitable trusts. With the exception of the Barratt Bequest Trust, these Trusts do not undertake transactions with Ashtead Common. Until it ceased on 23 December 2011 Ashtead Common benefited from the income derived from the remaining endowment of the Barratt Bequest (charity 1064114) from which funds were used to aid the purchase of Ashtead Common. This income was applied to assist the maintenance costs of the Common and is shown as income in the Statement of Financial Activities. A full list of other charitable Trusts of which the City of London Corporation is Trustee is available on application to the Chamberlain of the City of London.

There are corresponding arrangements for staff to recognise interests and avoid possible conflicts of those interests.

In this way, as a matter of policy and procedure, the City Corporation ensures that Members and officers do not exercise control over decisions in which they have an interest. There are no material transactions with organisations related by virtue of Members and officers interests which require separate reporting. Transactions are undertaken by the Trust on a normal commercial basis.

PageA1-20 223 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 224

WEST WICKHAM COMMON AND SPRING PARK WOOD COULSDON AND OTHER COMMONS

REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2012 Charity Numbers 232988 and 232989

Page 225 WEST WICKHAM COMMON AND SPRING PARK WOOD COULSDON AND OTHER COMMONS

Trustee’s Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

Contents Page

Trustee’s Annual Report 2-7

Independent Auditor’s Report 8-9

Statement of Financial Activities 10

Balance Sheet 11

Notes to the Financial Statements 12-19

A7-1Page 226 WEST WICKHAM COMMON AND SPRING PARK WOOD COULSDON AND OTHER COMMONS

Trustee’s Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2012 1. Reference and Administration Details Charity Name: West Wickham Common And Spring Park Wood Coulsdon and Other Commons

Registered Charity Numbers: 232988 and 232989

Principal Address: Guildhall, London EC2P 2EJ

Trustee: The Mayor, Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London

Chief Executive: The Town Clerk of the City of London Corporation

Treasurer: The Chamberlain of London

Solicitor: The Comptroller and City Solicitor

Banker: Lloyds TSB Bank plc City Office, PO Box 72 Bailey Drive Gillingham, Kent ME8 OLS

Auditor: Deloitte LLP Chartered Accountants and Statutory Auditor 2 New Street Square London EC4A 3BZ

2. Structure, Governance and Management The Governing Document and constitution of the charities The governing document is the Corporation of London (Open Spaces) Act 1878. The charities are constituted as charitable trusts.

Trustee Selection methods The Mayor, Commonalty and Citizens of London known as the City of London Corporation is the Trustee of West Wickham Common and Spring Park Wood Coulsdon and Other Commons. Elected Aldermen and Members of the City of London Corporation are appointed to the Epping Forest and Commons Committee governing West Wickham Common and Spring Park Wood Coulsdon and Other Commons by the Court of Common Council of the City of London Corporation.

Policies and procedures for the for the induction and training of trustees The City of London Corporation makes available to its Members, seminars and briefings on various aspects of the City’s activities, including those concerning West Wickham Common and Spring Park Wood Coulsdon and Other Commons, as it considers necessary to enable the Members to efficiently carry out their duties.

A7-2Page 227 WEST WICKHAM COMMON AND SPRING PARK WOOD COULSDON AND OTHER COMMONS

Trustee’s Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2012 Organisational structure and decision making process The committee governing the charities’ activities is noted above. The Committee is ultimately responsible to the Court of Common Council of the City of London. The decision making processes of the Court of Common Council are set out in the Standing Orders and Financial Regulations governing all the Court of Common Council’s activities.

The Standing Orders and Financial Regulations are available from the Town Clerk at the principal address.

Details of related parties and wider networks Details of any related party transactions are disclosed in note 12 of the Notes to the Financial Statements.

Risk identification The Trustee is committed to a programme of risk management as an element of its strategy to preserve the charities’ assets, enhance productivity for service users and members of the public and protect the employees.

A key risk register has been prepared for the charities and has been reviewed by the Committee acting on behalf of the Trustee. It identifies the potential impact of key risks and the measures which are in place to mitigate such risks.

3. Objectives and Activities for the Public Benefit The Trustee has due regard to the Charity Commission’s public benefit guidance when setting objectives and planning activities.

The objectives of the two charities are the preservation of the Open Spaces known collectively as West Wickham Common and Spring Park Wood, and Coulsdon and Other Commons for the recreation and enjoyment of the public. The charities have identical objects and are managed and accounted for as one unit. It is therefore not possible to produce separate reports and financial statements relating to the individual charities.

These charities are operated as part of the City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash. The City of London Corporation is committed to fund the ongoing net operational costs of the charities in accordance with the purpose which is the preservation of the Open Spaces known collectively as West Wickham Common and Spring Park Wood, and Coulsdon and Other Commons for the recreation and enjoyment of the public.

A7-3Page 228 WEST WICKHAM COMMON AND SPRING PARK WOOD COULSDON AND OTHER COMMONS

Trustee’s Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2012

4. Achievements and Performance

Significant developments for 2011/12: The West Wickham and Coulsdon Commons are managed as part of the City Commons Division of the Open Spaces Department. In addition to managing the West Wickham and Coulsdon Common charities, the City Commons Division is also responsible for the Ashtead Common charity. Financial reporting arrangements reflect the fact that these charities are separate and distinct entities, with separate Sundry Trust reports produced for the Ashtead and the West Wickham and Coulsdon Commons charities. However, practical site management and service delivery considerations dictate that the division is managed as a single unit, and the individual charities benefit from the efficiencies that this economy of scale provides.

A Divisional Plan sets strategy and management objectives for the division as a whole, which are then cascaded to individual management plans for the Commons. At the heart of the plans is the recognition that 3 core elements of the divisions’ work; namely service provision, site protection and efficient service delivery; need to be fully integrat ed. The management plans reflect the requirement of the Corporation of London (Open Spaces) Act 1878 (the Governing Document) to protect the open spaces in perpetuity.

During the course of the year new local management plans for Kenley Common and Coulsdon Common were formally adopted following a period of stakeholder and public consultation. These plans will guide work on these commons for the next 10 years. This marks the culmination of 3 years work to update all 7 management plans for the City Commons.

Volunteering across the City Commons continues to flourish, with 6 directly supported groups undertaking work across all 7 Open S paces; the Ashtead Common Volunteers, New Hillbillies (Farthing Downs and New Hill), Kenley Volunteers, Coulsdon Common Volunteers, Riddlesdown Volunteers and WWaSP’s (West Wickham and Spring Park). These groups were helped by volunteers from the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV), Croydon Conservation Volunteers and a number of corporate volunteers groups to achieve a total of over 10,000 volunteer hours. The division continues to support the Lower Mole and Downlands Countryside Management Projects to promote volunteering and champion local strategic partnerships.

A7-4Page 229 WEST WICKHAM COMMON AND SPRING PARK WOOD COULSDON AND OTHER COMMONS

Trustee’s Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2012

4. Achievements and Performance (continued)

on subjects as varied as tunnels under Riddlesdown, the Romans and star gazing. The division also facilitated a number of educational events during the course of the year, some of which were licensed activities and some that were directly led by the ranger team. Licenses were issued on 60 occasions to local groups for organised events, visits and educational activities on the Commons.

City Commons supported a series of local Fun Day events on 3 of the open spaces during the year. These events were delivered primarily by local community groups with support from City of London Rangers, thereby fostering a sense of ownership and empowerment amongst the local population. Events were held on Farthing Downs, Kenley and Riddlesdown. The division continued to support the work of 2 friends groups; the Friends of Farthing Downs and the Kenley Airfield Friends Group.

Key targets for 2011/12 and review of achievement The key targets for 2011/12 together with their outcomes were: • Management Plans – Produce new management plans for Coulsdon Common and Kenley Common. – New plans were produced and introduced. • Visitor Survey – Undertake visitor surveys across all 7 Commons to establish the target audience and provide the base line information necessary to promote our services and enable access for all. The first year of this project has been completed. Figures suggest that around 193,000 visits to the Commons are made a year. • Biodiversity Conservation – Incorporate Higher Level Stewardship Scheme management options into the annual work Programme. Higher Level Stewardship Scheme management options have been incorporated into the annual work programme and the first year of the programme has been completed. • Heritage Conservation – Develop a 10 year programme for protecting, conserving and promoting scheduled monuments and historic environments. Heritage Conservation Plans have been produced for all 7 commons and the work programme has been adjusted to reflect the priorities these have highlighted.

A review of other achievements: • Retention of the Green Flag Award status for all commons. • Roadside verge and hedgerow restoration on Farthing Downs and Coulsdon Common. • Riddlesdown School pupils engaged in a successful programme of conservation management on their local open space. • Volunteers trained to be group leaders, increasing capacity to offer more diverse volunteer opportunities. • Habitat management works to restore significant areas of chalk grassland on Kenley Common and Riddlesdown. • Launch of an innovative programme of health walks with an Olympic theme – bronze and silver graded walks. • Community and stakeholder involvement was encouraged through the City Commons Consultative Committee which met twice during the year.

A7-5Page 230 WEST WICKHAM COMMON AND SPRING PARK WOOD COULSDON AND OTHER COMMONS

Trustee’s Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2012

4. Achievements and Performance (continued)

• Corporate volunteering by local businesses allowed participants to make a positive difference to their local environment whilst developing their teams.

All of the above achievements enhanced the Open Space for the benefit of the public.

5. Financial Review Review of financial position Income of £92,425 (2010/11 £109,656) was received from grants, donations, fees and charges and sales and £28,431 (2010/11 £28,707) from rents. The contribution towards the running costs of the charity amounted to £1,206,174 (2010/11 £1,421,455). This cost was met by the City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash grant income.

Reserves Policy The charities are wholly supported by the City of London Corporation which is committed to maintain and preserve West Wickham Common and Spring Park Wood Coulsdon and Other Commons out of its City’s Cash Funds. These Funds are used to meet the deficit on running expenses on a year by year basis. Consequently, these charities have no free reserves and a reserves policy is therefore not required.

Investment Policy The charities themselves have no underlying supporting funds or investments and therefore an investment policy is not required.

Going Concern The Trustee considers the Commons to be going concerns. Please see note 1(b) to the Financial Statements.

6. Plans for Future Periods The key targets for 2012/13 are: • Consultation Strategy – Produce a policy and procedure for consultation about plans and projects to review stakeholders and improve arrangements for local consultative committees. • Visitor Survey – Continue the project aimed at establishing the size and diversity of our audience. • Environmental Stewardship – Continue to incorporate all aspects of the Environmental Stewardship Scheme into the annual work programme. • Marketing and Communication – Develop and implement an improvement plan to share information more effectively. • Education – Develop an improvement plan to promote greater knowledge and understanding of the commons.

A7-6Page 231 WEST WICKHAM COMMON AND SPRING PARK WOOD COULSDON AND OTHER COMMONS

Trustee’s Annual Report for the year ended 31 March 2012

7. The Financial Statements The financial statements consist of the following and include comparative figures for the previous year. • Statement of Financial Activities showing all resources available and all expenditure incurred and reconciling all changes in the funds of the charities. • Balance Sheet setting out the assets and liabilities of the charities. • Notes to the Financial Statements describing the accounting policies adopted and explaining information contained in the financial statements.

The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with statutory requirements and the Statement of Recommended Practice Accounting and Reporting by Charities (Revised 2005).

• select suitable accounting policies a nd then apply them consistently; • observe the methods and principles in the Charities SORP; • make judg ments and estimates that are reasonable and prudent; • state whether applicable accounting standards have been followed; and • prepare the financial statements on the going concern basis unless it is inappropriate to presume that the charity will continue in business.

The Trustee is responsible for keeping proper accounting records that disclose with reasonable accuracy at any time the financial position of the charities and enable them to ensure that the financial statements comply with the Charities Act 2011, the Charity (Accounts and Reports) Regulations 2008 and the provisions of the charities’ governing documents. It is also responsible for safeguarding the assets of the charities and hence for taking reasonable steps for the prevention and detection of fraud and other irregularities.

9. Adopted and signed for on behalf of the Trustee

R.A.H. Chadwick Raymond Michael Catt Chairman of Finance Committee Deputy Chairman of Guildhall, London Finance Committee

A7-7Page 232

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT TO THE TRUSTEES OF WEST WICKHAM COMMON AND SPRING PARK WOOD COULSDON AND OTHER COMMONS CHARITIES

We have audited the financial statements of West Wickham Common and Spring Park Wood Coulsdon and Other Commons for the year ended 31 March 2012 which comprise the Statement of Financial Activities, the Balance Sheet and the related notes 1 to 12. The financial reporting framework that has been applied in their preparation is applicable law and United Kingdom Accounting Standards (United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice).

This report is made solely to the charities’ Trustee, as a body, in accordance with section 144 of the Charities Act 2011 and regulations made under section 154 of that Act. Our audit work has been undertaken so that we might state to the charities’ Trustee those matters we are required to state to them in an auditor’s report and for no other purpose. To the fullest extent permitted by law, we do not accept or assume responsibility to anyone other than the charity and the charity’s Trustee as a body, for our audit work, for this report, or for the opinions we have formed.

Scope of the audit of the financial statements An audit involves obtaining evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement, whether caused by fraud or error. This includes an assessment of: whether the accounting policies are appropriate to the charities’ circumstances and have been consistently applied and adequately disclosed; the reasonableness of significa nt accounting estimates made by the T rustee; and the overall presentation of the financial statements. In addition, we read all the financial and non-financial information in the annual report to identify material inconsistencies with the audited financial statements. If we become aware of any apparent material misstatements or inconsistencies we consider the implications for our report.

Opinion on financial statements In our opinion the financial statements: • give a true and fair view of the state of the charities’ affairs as at 31 March 2012, and of their incoming resources and application of resources, for the year then ended; • have been properly prepared in accordance with United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice; and • have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Charities Act 2011.

A7-8Page 233

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT TO THE TRUSTEE OF WEST WICKHAM COMMON AND SPRING PARK WOOD COULSDON AND OTHER COMMONS CHARITIES (CONTINUED)

Matters on which we are required to report by exception We have nothing to report in respect of the following matters where the Charities Act 2011 requires us to report to you if, in our opinion: • the information given in the Trustee’s Annual Report is inconsistent in any material respect with the fina ncial statements; or • sufficient accounting records have not been kept; or • the financial statements are not in agreement with the accounting records and returns; or • we have not received all the information and explanations we require for our audit.

A7-9Page 234

WEST WICKHAM COMMON AND SPRING PARK WOOD COULSDON AND OTHER COMMONS

Statement of Financial Activities for the year ended 31 March 2012 Unrestricted Fund Notes 2011/12 2010/11 £ £ Incoming Resources Incoming resources from generated funds Voluntary income 57,507 64,247 Grant from City of London Corporation 1,206,174 1,421,455 Incoming resources from charitable activities 63,349 74,116 Total incoming resources 4 1,327,030 1,559,818

Resources Expended Charitable activities 1,244,657 1,470,430 Governance costs 82,373 89,388 Total resources expended 5 1,327,030 1,559,818

Net movement in funds - -

Reconciliation of funds Funds brought forward - - Funds carried forward - -

All operations are continuing.

A7-10Page 235

WEST WICKHAM COMMON AND SPRING PARK WOOD COULSDON AND OTHER COMMONS

Balance Sheet as at 31 March 2012 Notes 2012 2011 £ £ Current Assets Debtors 9 37,127 32,789 Cash at bank and in hand 67,831 88,784 104,958 121,573

Creditors: Amounts falling due within one year 10 (104,958) (121,573) Net Current Assets - -

The funds of the charity Unrestricted income fund - - Total charity funds - -

Approved and signed for an on behalf of the Trustee

The notes at pages 12 to 19 form part of these accounts.

______Chris Bilsland Chamberlain of London 21 st August 2012

A7-11Page 236 WEST WICKHAM COMMON AND SPRING PARK WOOD COULSDON AND OTHER COMMONS Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

1. Accounting policies The following accounting policies have been applied consistently in dealing with items which are considered material in relation to the charities financial statements.

(b) Going concern The governing documents place an obligation on the City of London Corporation to preserve the open spaces for the benefit of the public. The City of London Corporation is committed to fulfilling this obligation which is reflected through its proactive management of, and ongoing funding for, the services and activities required. The funding is provided from the City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash, which annually receives considerable income from its managed funds and property investments. Each year a medium term financial forecast is prepared for City’s Cash. The latest forecast for the period to 2015/16, anticipates that adequate funds will be available to enable the City’s Cash to continue to fulfil their obligations. On this basis, the Trustee considers the Commons to be going concerns for the foreseeable future.

West Wickham Common and Spring Park Wood Coulsdon and Other Commons comprise 277 hectares (685 acres) of land located in the London Boroughs of Bromley and Croydon, together with associated buildings. The objects of the charities are the preservation of the Commons at West Wickham and Coulsdon for the recreation and enjoyment of the public. West Wickham Common and Spring Park Wood Coulsdon and Other Commons are considered to be inalienable (i.e. may not be disposed of without specific statutory powers).

A7-12Page 237 WEST WICKHAM COMMON AND SPRING PARK WOOD COULSDON AND OTHER COMMONS Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

1. Accounting policies (continued) Volunteers No amounts are included in the Statement of Financial Activities for services donated by volunteers, as this cannot be quantified. Grants received Grants are included in the Statement of Financial Activities in the financial year in which they are receivable.

Contribution from City’s Cash The City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash meets the deficit on running expenses of the charity and also provides grant funding for certain capital works.

Rental income Rental income is included in the Charities’ incoming resources for the year and amounts due but not received at the year end are included in debtors.

(f) Pension costs The City of London’s Pension Scheme is a funded defined benefits scheme. City of London Corporation staff are eligible for membership of the pension scheme and may be employed in relation to the activities of any of the City Corporation’s three main funds, or any combination of them (i.e. City Fund, City’s Cash and Bridge House Estates). As the charities are unable to identify their share of the Pension Scheme assets and liabilities, this scheme is accounted for as a defined contribution scheme in the accounts.

(g) Cash flow statement The Commons have taken advantage of the exemption in Financial Reporting Standard 1 (Revised) from the requirement to produce a cash flow statement on the grounds that they are small entities.

(h) Governance costs The nature of costs allocated to Governance is detailed in Note 6.

2. Tax Status of the Charities West Wickham Common and Spring Park Wood Coulsdon and Other commons are registered charities and as such their income and gains are exempt from income tax to the extent that they are applied to their charitable objectives.

3. Indemnity Insurance The City of London Corporation takes out indemnity insurance in respect of all its activities. The charities do not contribute to the cost of that insurance. A7-13Page 238 WEST WICKHAM COMMON AND SPRING PARK WOOD COULSDON AND OTHER COMMONS Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

4. Incoming Resources Incoming resources are comprised as follows: 2011/12 2010/11 £ £ Incoming resources from generated funds Grants 49,496 60,852 Donations 8,011 3,395 Grant from City of London Corporation 1,206,174 1,421,455 1,263,681 1,485,702

Incoming resources from charitable activities Sale of goods, products and materials 11,712 40,845 Fees and charges 23,206 4,564 Rents 28,431 28,707 63,349 74,116

Total incoming resources 1,327,030 1,559,818

Grants Grants were received from the Rural Payments Agency and Natural England.

Grant from City of London Corporation The City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash meets the deficit on running expenses of the charities.

Fees and Charges Charges are made to the public in respect of admission charges and licenses granted.

5. Resources Expended Resources expended are analysed between activities undertaken directly and support costs as follows:

Activities Support undertaken 2011/12 2010/11 costs directly £ £ £ £ Charitable activities 1,123,920 120,737 1,244,657 1,470,430 Governance costs - 82,373 82,373 89,388 Total resources expended 1,123,920 203,110 1,327,030 1,559,818

A7-14Page 239 WEST WICKHAM COMMON AND SPRING PARK WOOD COULSDON AND OTHER COMMONS Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

5. Resources Expended (continued)

No resources are expended by third parties to undertake charitable work on behalf of the charities.

Charitable activities Expenditure on charitable activities includes labour, premises costs, equipment, materials and other supplies and services incurred as the running costs of West Wickham Common and Spring Park Wood Coulsdon and Other commons.

Governance costs General Governance costs relating to the general running of the charities, rather than specific activities within the charities, include strategic planning and costs associated with Trustee meetings. These costs are initially borne by the City of London Corporation and then charged to individual charities on the basis of time spent, as part of support costs, where appropriate.

Auditor’s remuneration and fees for external financial services The City of London’s external auditor audits these charities as one of the numerous charities administered by the City of London Corporation. The City of London Corporation does not attempt to apportion the audit fee between all the different charities but prefers to treat it as part of the cost to their private funds. No other external financial services were provided for the Commons during the year or in the previous year.

A7-15Page 240 WEST WICKHAM COMMON AND SPRING PARK WOOD COULSDON AND OTHER COMMONS Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

6. Support Costs The cost of administration, which includes the salaries and associated costs of officers of the City of London Corporation, together with premises and office expenses, is allocated by the City of London Corporation to the activities under its control, including these charities, on the basis of employee time spent on the respective services. These expenses include the cost of administrative and technical staff and external consultants who work on a number of the City of London Corporation’s activities. Support costs allocated by the City of London Corporation to the charitable activity are derived as follows: Charitable Governance 2011/12 2010/11 activities £ £ £ £ Department Chamberlain - 25,047 25,047 20,155 Comptroller & City Solicitor - 16,923 16,923 23,906 Open Spaces Directorate 34,624 - 34,624 71,048 Town Clerk - 23,859 23,859 26,452 City Surveyor 58,305 12,762 71,067 69,641 Information Systems 10,792 - 10,792 13,244 Other governance and support costs 17,016 3,782 20,798 20,835 Total support costs 120,737 82,373 203,110 245,281

The main support services provided by the City of London Corporation are: Chamberlain Accounting services, insurance, revenue collection, payments, financial systems and internal audit. Comptroller and City Property, litigation, contracts, public law and administration of Solicitor commercial rents and City of London Corporation records. Open Spaces Expenditure incurred by the Directorate, which is recharged to all Directorate Open Spaces Committees under the control of the Director of Open Spaces. The apportionments are calculated on the basis of budget resources available to each Open Space charity. Town Clerk Committee administration, management services, human resources, public relations, printing and stationery, emergency planning. City Surveyor Work undertaken on the management of the Estate properties, surveying services and advice, supervising and administering repairs and maintenance. Information Systems The support and operation of the City of London Corporation’s central and corporate systems on the basis of usage of the systems; the provision of “desktop” and network support services and small IS development projects that might be required by the charity. Other Contribution towards various costs including publishing the annual governance costs report and financial statements, central training, occupational health, union costs and the environmental and sustainability section.

A7-16Page 241 WEST WICKHAM COMMON AND SPRING PARK WOOD COULSDON AND OTHER COMMONS Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

7. Staff Numbers and Costs The full time equivalent number of staff employed by the City of London Corporation charged to West Wickham Common and Spring Park Wood Coulsdon and Other Commons in 2011/12 is 15 (2010/11 15) at a cost of £475,305 (2010/11 £477,830). The table below sets out the employment costs and the number of full time equivalent staff charged directly to the charities.

Employers' Employers' No of Gross National Pension Total employees Pay Insurance Contribution £ £ £ £

2011/12 Charitable activities 15 381,606 28,040 65,659 475,305 2010/11 Charitable activities 15 382,738 27,542 67,550 477,830

No employees earned more than £60,000 during the year (2010/11 Nil).

8. Heritage Assets Since 1892 the primary purpose of the Charity has been the preservation of the commons at West Wickham Common and Spring Park Wood Coulsdon and Other Commons for the recreation and enjoyment of the public. As set out in accounting policy 1(c), the original heritage land and buildings are not recognised in the Financial Statements.

Policies for the preservation and management of West Wickham Common and Spring Park Wood Coulsdon and Other Commons are contained in the West Wickham Common and Spring Park Wood Coulsdon and Other Commons Heritage Conservation Plan 2010. Records of heritage assets owned and maintained by West Wickham Common and Spring Park Wood Coulsdon and Other Commons can be obtained from the Director of Open Spaces at the principal address as set out on page 2.

9. Debtors The debtors figure consists of:

2012 2011 £ £ Rental Debtors 7,247 7,237 Recoverable VAT 19,089 23,164 Other Debtors 10,791 2,388 Total 37,127 32,789

A7-17Page 242 WEST WICKHAM COMMON AND SPRING PARK WOOD COULSDON AND OTHER COMMONS Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

10. Creditors The creditors figure consists of:

2012 2011 £ £ Trade Creditors 8,289 15,679 Accruals 67,825 75,742 Other Creditors - 1,343 Sundry Deposits 26,820 26,820 Receipts In Advance 2,024 1,989 Total 104,958 121,573

In 2011/12, the total employer’s contributions to the pension fund for staff employed on City’s Cash activities (including West Wickham Common and Spring Park Wood Coulsdon and Other Commons) were £6.0m amounting to 17.5% of pensionable pay. The figures for 2010/11 were £6.5m and 18.5% of pensionable pay.

Although the Pension Fund is a defined benefit scheme, for the purpose of FRS17 City’s Cash (and therefore West Wickham Common and Spring Park Wood Coulsdon and Other Commons) is unable to identify its share of the underlying assets and liabilities. Consequently the pension arrangements are treated as a defined contributions scheme in the City’s Cash and these accounts. The deficit of the scheme calculated in accordance with FRS17 by independent consulting actuaries at 31 March 2012 is £351m (2010/11 £188m).

12. Related Party Transactions The following disclosures are made in recognition of the principles underlying Financial Reporting Standard 8 concerning related party transactions.

The City of London Corporation as well as being the Trustee also provides management, surveying and administrative services for the charities. The costs incurred by the City of London Corporation in providing these services are charged to the charities. The City of London Corporation also provides banking services, allocating all transactions to the charities at cost and crediting or charging interest at a commercial rate. The cost of these services is set out in the Statement of Financial Activities under “Resources Expended” and an explanation of these services is set out in Note 6 for support costs of £203,110. The City of London Corporation’s City’s Cash meets the deficit on running expenses of the charity. This amounted to £1,206,174 as shown in Note 5 to the financial statements.

A7-18Page 243 WEST WICKHAM COMMON AND SPRING PARK WOOD COULSDON AND OTHER COMMONS Notes to the Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2012

12. Related Party Transactions (continued)

The City of London Corporation is also the Trustee of a number of other charitable Trusts. These Trusts do not undertake transactions with West Wickham Common and Spring Park Wood Coulsdon and Other Commons. A full list of other charitable trusts of which the City of London Corporation is trustee is available on application to the Chamberlain of the City of London.

Members of the City of London Corporation responsible for managing the Commons are required to comply with the Relevant Authority (model code of conduct) Order 2001 issued under the Local Government Act 2000 and the City of London Corporation’s guidelines which require that:

• Members sign a declaration agreeing to abide by the City of London Corporation’s code of conduct ; • a register of interests is maintained ; • pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests are declared during meetings ; and • Members do not participate in decisions where they have an interest.

There are corresponding arrangements for staff to recognise interests and avoid possible conflicts of those interests.

In this way, as a matter of policy and procedure, the City Corporation ensures that members and officers do not exercise control over decisions in which they have an interest. There are no material transactions with organisations related by virtue of members and officers interests which require separate reporting. Transactions are undertaken by the Commons on a normal commercial basis.

A7-19Page 244 Agenda Item 17

ASHTEAD COMMON CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE Monday, 2 July 2012

Minutes of the meeting of the Ashtead Common Consultative Committee held at Ashtead Estate Office, Woodfield Road, Ashtead, Surrey, KT21 2DU on Monday, 2 July 2012 at 6.30 pm

Present

Members: Alderman Gordon Haines (Chairman) Barbara Newman (Deputy Chairman) Joseph Byllam-Barnes Douglas Mobsby David Baker (Ashtead Residents’ Association) Helen Cocker (Lower Mole Countryside Management Project) Bob Eberhard (CTC Local Rights of Way) Wyn James (Ashtead Common Volunteers) Paul Krause (Surrey Wildlife Trust) Cllr John Northcott (Mole Valley District Council Ward Councillor for Ashtead Common) Cllr Chris Townsend (Surrey County Council) Pippa Woodall (British Horse Society)

Officers: Edward Foale - Committee & Member Services Officer, Town Clerk's Department Bob Warnock - Superintendent, City Commons Shaun Waddell - Senior Ranger, City Commons Andrew Thwaites - Head Ranger, City Commons

1. APOLOGIES Apologies were received from Anthony McLelland.

2. DECLARATIONS BY MEMBERS OF ANY PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THIS AGENDA There were no declarations.

3. MINUTES The minutes from the meeting held on 30 January 2012 were approved, subject to the following amendment:

Item 4 – Key Projects It was confirmed that volunteers were not classified as City Commons employees, but the City nevertheless had the same duty of care towards them.

MATTERS ARISING Item 6 – City Commons Annual Work Programme A Member advised that the drop-kerb opposite the level crossing was not an issue for mobility scooter users, but continued to be an issue for cyclists.

Page 245 4. ANNUAL REVIEW OF VOLUNTEER WORKING ON THE OPEN SPACES The Committee considered a report of the Director of Open Spaces, which reviewed volunteer working on the City’s open spaces over the previous year. Volunteer activity across all of the City’s open spaces in 2011/12 amounted to over 46,000 hours worked, an increase of 1,132 hours on the previous year.

The Superintendent advised that Ashtead Common had the largest number of volunteer hours of all the City Commons. In response to a Member’s concern that there were now too many volunteers, the Superintendent advised that the Volunteer Leaders who were currently undergoing training would begin to allocate tasks and disseminate relevant information to volunteers, which would reduce the amount of staff time required to manage them. The Superintendent also advised that volunteers were undertaking a wider variety of tasks than previously and were currently involved in reptile and tree surveys.

The Committee recognised the benefit of having a large number of volunteers and commended the work undertaken by them.

RECEIVED

5. RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERSHIP - GOVERNMENT CONSULTATIONS & INITIATIVES The Committee considered a report of the Director of Open Spaces relative to Dog Control Orders. The City had acquired Secondary Authority Status on 31 May 2012, which allowed the City to make and enforce Dog Control Orders in its Open Spaces outside the Square Mile. The report advised the Committee of proposals to consult on the introduction of one or more Dog Control Orders at Burnham Beeches before determining the way forward for other Open Spaces.

In response to a Member’s query, the Superintendent clarified that Croydon currently had Dog Control Orders. It was not currently anticipated that Mole would seek to obtain the Orders as it was not considered necessary or proportionate to counter dog-related incidents in the area. The Superintendent drew comparisons between the measures used to enforce the Orders and the Fixed Penalty Notices used to enforce traffic laws.

In response to a Members’ question, the Superintendent advised that a report outlining the proposed introduction of Dog Control Orders at Burnham Beeches was expected to be submitted to each Open Spaces Grand Committee by the end of the year.

In response to a Member’s query, the Chairman advised that the Open Spaces, City Gardens & West Ham Park Committee had been broadly in favour of proposals to microchip dogs, although the issue had proven contentious. The Superintendent advised that many industry bodies, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Kennel Club, were proponents of microchipping dogs.

Page 246 A Member expressed concern that professional dog walkers could be unfairly restricted in the number of dogs they could walk.

RECEIVED

MEETING ADJOURNMENT

At 18.57, Members agreed to adjourn the meeting temporarily.

At 19.06, the meeting resumed.

The Superintendent advised that earlier in the evening there had been an incident involving the delivery of cattle to the Common. The Head Ranger and Senior Ranger had been involved in controlling the incident, along with local volunteers contacted at short notice. The situation had since been resolved.

6. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE There were no questions.

7. BUSINESS PLAN KEY PROJECTS UPDATE The Committee considered a report relative to Key Projects for the ensuing year.

In response to a Member’s query, the Senior Ranger advised that, over the life of the Project, 320 trees would be analysed in the Veteran Tree Management Project, 80 of which would be analysed in 2012/13.

In response to a Member’s query, the Superintendent advised that a report on visitor numbers in Ashtead Common would be submitted to the Committee in due course.

RECEIVED

8. SENIOR RANGER'S UPDATE The Committee received a verbal update from the Senior Ranger, during which the following points were noted: • The post mortem on a cow that died in 2011 had been inconclusive, but it was likely the cow died of poisoning from vegetation. As a precaution, cattle would not be placed in the grazing area in which the cow had been found dead. • As part of the Heritage Weekend arrangements, the Ashtead Common volunteers would run an information point adjacent to the Roman Villa excavations. To engage with visitors the volunteers provide teas and homemade cakes. Any donations received would be sent to a local charity chosen by volunteers. • In response to a Member’s query, the Senior Ranger advised that a national vegetation clarification survey was being undertaken The management regime at Phoenix Field was reducing the build-up of

Page 247 bracken mulch, which would consequently reduce the fire risk in the area.

RECEIVED

9. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT The Superintendent advised that Newton Wood, a 72-acre stretch of land adjoined to Ashtead Common, was currently on offer for £450,000. The Wood was characteristically very different from Ashtead Common, but would complement the City’s existing land. However, the City was not currently able to make any capital purchases for budgetary reasons. The land was a Site of Special Scientific Interest and located within the Green Belt.

A Member expressed concern that a future government could relax planning laws to allow the owner to sell the wood for urban development.

In response to a Member’s query, the Superintendent advised that section 106 funding could not be used to purchase the land.

The Superintendent advised that there was currently no public access to Newton Wood. If someone bought the land, it could be beneficial to negotiate public access.

RECEIVED

10. DATE OF NEXT MEETING The Town Clerk undertook to arrange the next Committee meeting and notify Members accordingly.

The meeting ended at 7.51 pm

Chairman

Contact Officer: Edward Foale tel. no.: 020 7332 1426 edward [email protected]

Page 248 Agenda Item 21 By virtue of paragraph(s) 1, 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 249 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 250 Agenda Item 22 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 251 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 256 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 257 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 258 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 259 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 260