STEDHAM WITH PARISH COUNCIL SIPC Meeting 18th July 2018 - Agenda Item 13 Correspondence

No1. Rectory Field

Response from SIPC to arrange meeting.

Page 1 of 13 WITH IPING PARISH COUNCIL SIPC Meeting 18th July 2018 - Agenda Item 13 Correspondence

No1. Rectory Field(cont)

Original note from Pauline Matthews re Rectory Field

Page 2 of 13 STEDHAM WITH IPING PARISH COUNCIL SIPC Meeting 18th July 2018 - Agenda Item 13 Correspondence

No2. Widlife Trust

2.1 Emails relating to fire on Iping Common 28th February 2018

STEDHAM WITH IPING PARISH COUNCIL PARISH COUNCIL Clerk: Jane Crawford Clerk: Neil Ryder Mount Cross Minsted GU29 0JH Steps Trotton West Sussex, GU31 5EP email: [email protected] email: [email protected]

Email to Tony Whitbread Chief Executive Sussex Wildlife Trust 22 June 2018

Dear Mr Whitbread Fire on Iping Common 28th February 2018 Thank you for your letter of 18th May and for the “hand of friendship” offer. Our two parishes would obviously prefer to maintain friendly working relationships with SWT, and very much hope to restore these after our recent disagreements. However, our rôle in any such relationship is to represent our communities, and we cannot ignore the continuing outrage over SWT’s initial reaction and subsequent handling of the recent fire – particularly the refusal to arrange an independent enquiry into it (we did not ask for a “public” enquiry). Unfortunately, your letter does not provide us with the information we would need to reverse the surge of local resentment – in fact, it seems to raise more questions than it answers, such as: - You say that you instigated a “full enquiry” but we are not aware of any local parish councils, neighbouring landowners or local witnesses to the fire that have been involved in any such enquiry. - You have not sent us any report of that enquiry, or that of the fire service or any copy of the SDNPA verification of the enquiry (which you had promised). - You claim that there has been “no negligent damage”. We can accept that the fire may well be beneficial to wildlife in the long term but your view that the current state of the common does not represent damage is a very clear point of difference with the view of local residents and users of the common. There has certainly been extensive damage, which is there for all to see. - Whether this damage was negligent is not addressed in your letter and we would need to see the report on your enquiry before we could judge whether it adequately covers such issues as: how your team had assessed fire risks in the light of weather forecasts that day; whether poor maintenance of the fire breaks was a factor in the very wide spread of the fire; whether eye witness reports of the fire jumping the bridle path onto private land at the NE corner of the common due to flying embers from the top of piles of high and burning piles of rubbish from your fencing operations. - Why are some of these piles of burnable material still in place adjacent to so-called fire breaks

Given these last two points, we feel it is premature for you to call for an apology over our “assertion of negligent damage”, let alone a public one. We would be very interested to see copies of the enquiry report, together with the views of the SDNPA on it and the reports of the “independent organisations and fire experts” that have apparently looked at your “systems and safety procedures”.

I hope you can understand that local people, hearing that you had lit bonfires in an area surrounded by dry, dead bracken, on a common littered with high piles of dried cuttings from your own fencing operations (some of them right on the edge of firebreaks), on a very blustery day - which just happened to be the last day you were allowed to have a bonfire due to the nesting season – are bound to feel this amounted to negligence until you release reports countering those views.

The fact that your initial response carefully skated over the fact that the bonfire was lit by your own team, that you refused to arrange an independent enquiry and a public meeting to report on it and that it took two months for us to receive any response to our letter of 27th March (other than via the press) is not yet a basis on which we could “draw a line under the past”. If you are prepared to send us all the reports mentioned above, we will do our utmost to respond fairly.

Yours sincerely

Morag Birch Neil Ryder

Clerk Clerk / member Stedham with Iping Parish Council Trotton with Chithurst Parish Council

Page 3 of 13 STEDHAM WITH IPING PARISH COUNCIL SIPC Meeting 18th July 2018 - Agenda Item 13 Correspondence

No2. Sussex Widlife Trust(cont)

Page 4 of 13 STEDHAM WITH IPING PARISH COUNCIL SIPC Meeting 18th July 2018 - Agenda Item 13 Correspondence

No2. Sussex Widlife Trust(cont)

STEDHAM WITH IPING TROTTON WITH CHITHURST PARISH COUNCIL PARISH COUNCIL

Email to Tony Whitbread Chief Executive Sussex Wildlife Trust

27 March 2018

Dear Mr Whitbread

Fire on Iping Common 28th February 2018

In the Minutes of the LNR meeting on 8th March 2018 great emphasis is placed on how the fire started, thus conveniently sidestepping the issue of why fires were still being lit on such a day in such weather conditions. Our interest is in why the fire started and on how it spread so far and so fast despite the firebreaks on the Common.

1. Risk Assessment Did SWT rely on a generic Risk Assessment for the clearing and burning exercise? What does that Risk Assessment conclude about bonfires on heathland and the piling up of combustible materials? How did the risk assessment compare with that done by the National Trust for their nearby burnings on Common on the same day? Was a Risk Assessment specifically repeated and was it in any way different on 28th February in order to take account of the well-publicised and forecasted weather conditions? What does the Risk Assessment say about the risk of fire spreading to neighbouring houses, woods and businesses and to traffic using the busy A272, given the proximity of the bonfire sites to all of these on 28 February? How significant was the date of the fire, given that the official bird nesting season commenced on 1 March? What procedures were in place for the control and management of bonfires by volunteers? Were the volunteers briefed before the fire was lit? We would like to see the detailed briefing that they were given, in particular the training to prevent the spread of the fires as well as details of the use of the fire brooms which locals have observed remained in situ around the Common and were consequently burned rather than being available for use. If so, why did both the briefings and procedures prove inadequate? Who was supervising the volunteers? Why did so many of the firebreaks put in by SWT fail to work? To what extent was the fire’s spread aided by the lack of controlled burning in recent years and the consequent volume of dry bracken, and by the piles of cuttings from SWT’s own fence preparations?

2. Enquiry We have already called for an independent enquiry to take place into the fire and its causes at which independent witnesses of the fire and the activities leading up to it can be heard.

You have offered an investigation run by your own staff, which will be scrutinised by the South Downs National Park Authority (“SDNPA”).

Page 5 of 13 STEDHAM WITH IPING PARISH COUNCIL SIPC Meeting 18th July 2018 - Agenda Item 13 Correspondence

No2. Sussex Widlife Trust(cont)

2.1 Emails relating to Stedham Common Gates

On 15 Jul 2018, at 18:36, Lucy Petrie> wrote: This meeting is now rearranged for 20 July at 10.30am to discuss gates on both commons Lucy

From: Lucy Petrie < Sent: 04 July 2018 08:43 To: Ryder> Subject: FW: Stedham Common Gates URGENT please!

BHS are meeting with Jane W and me on 17 July at 2.30pm at Iping car park. If you want to come, please do. We are going to discuss gates, closing times and stiffness. But also possible new gates on Stedham (their design etc). It turns out the slow closing gate by Iping carpark is not the design the BHS thought they had agreed because it does not stop for 2 seconds before closing, which is a problem for horse riders, if you are opening the gate towards you. So I will be asking that the time can be extended to 12 seconds overall closing time, up from 8s. Also can we ask for at least two gates like this on Stedham – do we think that is a good idea? The disadvantage of these gates is that they cannot be locked open. Lucy

On 27 June 2018 at 11:19, Lucy Petrie wrote:

Dear Sarah

Thanks for your long e-mail, which I really appreciate. Certainly it would be good to meet up and walk around when it suits everyone. The issue of one-way gates and stock control is a contentious one, because the Natural / BHS gate trials didn’t seem to bear this out. I can see a farmer might prefer this, because instinctively he feel the cattle are less likely to escape but the evidence does not support this and SWT should respect this. This style of gates has a large effect on riders and disabled. Those using a mobility device for instance may be able, in theory, to reserve the vehicle whilst pulling the gate but the reality is they are usually too frail to have the strength required for this. With best wishes Lucy

From: Sarah Rayfield BHS> Sent: 25 June 2018 15:00 To: Lucy Petrie> Subject: FW: Stedham Common Gates URGENT please!

Dear Lucy Thanks for your email. Claire McCaffery-Clarke (Regional Manager) and I visited the common and walked around the site with Jane (Sussex Wildlife Trust) looking at each of the wooden gates installed. At the time of visiting, there were two gates which had not yet been delivered and so these could not be checked. Jane was obviously aware of the required closing times, etc. for their subsequent installation and SWT had requested that they be pre-set in this manner before despatch from the manufacturer although she was aware that it may not happen and so adjustment might be needed on site. The gate you are referring to is one of those gates. In the main, the gates worked well but we did comment on the stiffness on a number of the openings and Jane made notes of the feedback given as it was clear that a number of hinges needed adjustment to make this easier. At the time of visiting, all of the gates were padlocked open and

Page 6 of 13 STEDHAM WITH IPING PARISH COUNCIL SIPC Meeting 18th July 2018 - Agenda Item 13 Correspondence

so each had to be un-padlocked to demonstrate their use and Jane suspected that the gates might need adjustment after they had been padlocked open for a while as they had been operating properly previously. There was one gate in particular on a bridleway which needed some significant ground work by either WSCC or SWT to make it safe and this has been further commented on since our visit. Before responding to you today, I have forwarded your main concerns to Jane (SWT) and Tricia Butcher for their responses. Tricia has said of the two gates that weren’t there to check at our visit, that they should have a Pro-safe mechanism to delay closing and, if this was not working we should ask Centrewire to come out and fix it. She would like to go out and see the gates for herself sometime soon and would be happy to meet you then if it would help. Jane has responded saying that when she shut the gates ready for the cattle, she adjusted the ones that needed it to make sure they were easy to use. She implemented everything we (Claire and I) suggested apart from cutting down the pine and birch trees that were a bit close to the gates which she will do at the end of the nesting season. She suspects that because the weather has gone from cold and wet when they were installed to very dry now, they have moved a bit (dropped so that the weight of the gate is on the latch which makes it harder to pull the handle across). On Thursday, she says that you and another rider mentioned they were stiff again, so they were adjusted again on Friday. They have been keeping an eye on the gates as they are keen to make sure there are no problems. However, that said, another local rider has said they were fine. She has clarified for me that the “8s gate” is the hydraulic one set to 8 seconds and says that there are two settings for these gates: the initial speed of swing shut and the final closing speed. There is no possible setting for a 2 second delay. She will try again later this week to see if she can make any further adjustment to the gate following its settling in – it had been set for as long a closing time as possible. One way opening gates will not be ideal for some equestrians but do seem to be necessary for stock control so this is a compromise. Further, when we are accustomed to unfettered access to common land, we won’t be happy with any ‘obstruction’, let alone the number of gates that have been installed at this location. That said, I understand that this permission has been legally granted following due process and so BHS has worked with SWT to endeavour to produce the best possible outcome from a less than ideal situation for riders. Do please take up Tricia’s and Jane’s offer to meet if you wish. I would be happy to join you if you would like me to but would warn that I cannot do so for a number of weeks with annual leave and other meetings occupying my time in the interim. Kind regards Sarah

From: Lucy Petrie [] Sent: 22 June 2018 17:42 To: Sarah Rayfield Subject: RE: Stedham Common Gates URGENT please!

Dear Sarah

I understood that you were inspecting the gates on Iping Common, in Tricia’s absence. I was up there yesterday and found most of the wooden gates adjusted to be too stiff to open by anyone who was not very well muscled and with a quiet pony. Did you ask that they were made suitable to all especially children and less physically fit? Also the 8s gate onto the carpark at Iping, is not at set to have the two second dampening, before the closing starts. Did you ask about this? It would have been good for the local riders to have some feedback, because at the drop-in session held by Sussex Wildlife Trust yesterday they assured us that the BHS has inspected the gates and we were given the impression that they were all passed, when clearly there are still issues which affect everyone trying to ride there, and it would be helpful to know if this had been flagged up. Many thanks. Lucy

Page 7 of 13 STEDHAM WITH IPING PARISH COUNCIL SIPC Meeting 18th July 2018 - Agenda Item 13 Correspondence

No3. MADhurst

Letter from Brian Archer(Treasurer MADhurst Committee) to SIPC - 16th May 2018

MADhurst Festival 2018 – Grand Finale Bank Holiday Monday, 27th August 2018

I am writing on behalf of the MADhurst Committee to ask if Stedham with Iping Parish Council would consider making a donation / grant to us as financial support for the costs associated with staging this free-to-all community event. This years’ Grand Finale will again take place on the Midhurst Sports Association grounds, between 12:00 and 20:00 hrs. In addition to a wide range of craft, charity, food and other stalls, there will be a programme of stage and arena-based entertainments and activities taking place throughout the day. As before, the Grand Finale coincides with Midhurst Town Council’s Carnival Procession, the route of which culminates on the event grounds. Full details of the Grand Finale and the other MADhurst Festival events will be published in due course on www.madhurst.co.uk. There is no charge for entry to the Grand Finale, which attracts substantial numbers from Midhurst and surrounding area. Help in recovering the ever-increasing costs associated with mounting this event is through the generosity of Festival sponsors, advertisers and grants / donations from organisations such as yourselves. Hence this request for support, which we hope you will look favourably upon.

I appreciate that by only giving a brief description I am assuming you are already aware of the MADhurst Festival Grand Finale, but if you would like further details, please contact me.

Note: MADhurst is a not-for-profit community group. Its aims for the communities of Midhurst and surrounding area are to: • celebrate and develop creativity • encourage the appreciation and enjoyment of and participation in the arts, including music, art and drama, by organising, promoting and supporting concerts, performances and other arts activities throughout the year • provide support to other local organisations and community groups with charitable aims to enhance wellbeing and common good.

Page 8 of 13 STEDHAM WITH IPING PARISH COUNCIL SIPC Meeting 18th July 2018 - Agenda Item 13 Correspondence

No4. Resident of East Lodge re Flooding(tbc) East Lodge resident rang up to ask about flooding down the Rotherhill Track into their house. Lucy Petrie suggested they ask about watershed grants but haven’t heard back fas yet

No5. Stedham School Governors(tbc) Neil Ryder (School Governor) expressed a wish for closer ties with the SIPC, e.g. a supper. In addition SIPC sent in the schools response to the Schools Strategy Consultation as per his recommendations.

No6. Velo South Sportive Cycle Ride - 23rd September 2018

Route is as shown below.

Following are emails between Clerk for Parish Council and Councillor Goldsmith which were copied to District Parishes

Page 9 of 13 STEDHAM WITH IPING PARISH COUNCIL SIPC Meeting 18th July 2018 - Agenda Item 13 Correspondence

Page 10 of 13 STEDHAM WITH IPING PARISH COUNCIL SIPC Meeting 18th July 2018 - Agenda Item 13 Correspondence

Page 11 of 13 STEDHAM WITH IPING PARISH COUNCIL SIPC Meeting 18th July 2018 - Agenda Item 13 Correspondence

cont next page

Page 12 of 13 STEDHAM WITH IPING PARISH COUNCIL SIPC Meeting 18th July 2018 - Agenda Item 13 Correspondence

Page 13 of 13