DOCSLIB.ORG

Agricultural Management of Common Land in England and Wales

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Agricultural Management of Common Land in England and Wales February 2005 Agricultural Management of Common Land in England and Wales Appendices Prepared by Land Use Consultants for Defra Appendix 1 Bodies involved in the agricultural management of commons in England and Wales NOTE: This Appendix lists the associations, legal authorities and other bodies thought to be involved in the agricultural management of common land. It is based on information from a variety of sources which are identified in the tables and described at the end of the Appendix. This list is not exhaustive and some of the bodies listed may no longer have an active interest in agricultural management. The authors therefore take no responsibility for inaccuracies or omissions. App 1.1 Location Name of Organisation Source 1 Federation of Commons Associations Cumbria Federation of Cumbria Commoners 1. Lancashire Proposed Lancashire Commoners’ Federation (will be 9. affiliated to Cumbria) Yorkshire Yorkshire Federation of Commoners and Moorland Graziers 9. (established Nov. 04) Wales Proposed Welsh Federation of Commoners (in process of 9. being established) Cornwall Cornwall Commoners Council 4. 5. Informally constituted commoners associations Wales Abergwesyn Hill Graziers’ Association 12. Suffolk (?) Alde & Ore Association 2. Wales Allt Dolanog Graziers Association 12. Wales Beacon and Pool Hills Graziers’ Association 12. Cumbria Blawith and Subberthwaite Commoners’ Association 2. Cornwall Bodmin Moor Commoners’ Association (associated with 4. 13. Cornwall Commoners Council – see above) Northumberland Burgage Holders of Alnmouth Common 2. Wales Caergurwen & Penlle’rfedwen Commoners Association 7. Cumbria Caldbeck Commoners Association 2. Cumbria Castleshaw Commoners 2. Surrey Chobham Society 2. Shropshire Clee Liberty Commoners’ Association 13. North Yorkshire CL63 Protection Group 2. Shropshire Common Sense for Prees 2. Shropshire Commoners of the Manor, Stretton-en-le-Dale 2. Cumbria Crosby Ravenstock Commoners 2. Cumbria Cumbria Upland Management Working Group 2. Devon Dartmoor Commoners’ Council 2. Cornwall David Stowe Commoners’ Association 2. Devon Forest of Dartmoor Commoners Association 2. Surrey Frensham Common Interests Committee 2. Wales Garreg Goch Commoners Association 2. Wales Gladestry and Colva Commoners Association 7. Wales Gower Commoners’ Association 2. 7. 13. West Berkshire Greenham and Crookham Commons Commission 2. Wales, Flintshire Halkyn Common Graziers’ & Commoners’ Association; 10. 13. Halkyn Common Management Committee Shropshire Hilton Commoners Committee 7. West Pennines, Holcombe Moor Commoners’ Association 4. Bury MBC Forest of Dean Hundalls Wood Commoners’ Association 6. Yorkshire Dales Nat Park Moughton Common - Ingleborough Management Committee 4. 7. Pennines, Teesdale Knock & Dufton Fells 4. Lancashire Lancashire Commons, Commons Association 7. Cumbria Langdale and Grasmere Commons Association 2. Wales Llanafan Hill Graziers Association 7. 13. 1 Numbered documents and sources are listed after the tables App 1.2 Location Name of Organisation Source 1 Wales Llanbedr, Llandeilo Common Graziers’ Association 12. Wales Llanbister and Moelfre Hills Graziers’ Association 12. Wales Llangennth Manors Limited 7. Wales Llanwrthwl Common Graziers’ Association 12. Lincolnshire Lincoln Commons Horse Association 4. 7. Northumberland Lowick Commoners (Inquiries suggest not active) 4. Shropshire Longymnd Commoners Association 7. East Devon Luppitt Commons Association 7. Devon Mary Tavy Commoners’ Association 2. Suffolk Mellis Common Advisory Committee 2. Lancashire or Staffordshire? Middleton Commoners Association 7. Wales Mignaint Grazier’ Association 7. Wales Moeldod Graziers’ Association 12. Wales Moelynaidd Graziers’ Association 12. Norfolk New Buckenham Common Right Holders Association 7. Cheshire Nether Knutsford Freeholders’ Association 6. Hampshire New Forest Committee 2. Hampshire New Forest Commoners’ Defence Association 2. North Yorkshire North York Moors Association 2. Wales (Bridgend) Ogmore Commoners Association 6. Essex Orsett Fen Right Holders 2. Wales Penderyn Commoners Association 7. Devon (Dartmoor) Peter Tavy Commons 4. Hebden Bridge Popples Commoners’ Association 4. East Sussex Pound Green Commoners Association 4. 7. Worcestershire Powick Commons Committee 2. North Shropshire Prees Heath Commoners’ Association 4. Wales Rhosfaelog Common Graziers’ Association 12. Lancashire Rossendale & District Commoners Association 7. 13. Rushmore Commoners 4. Norfolk Scolt Head & District Common Rightholders’ Association 7. Gloucestershire/Cotswolds Selsley Common Graziers Association (Woodchester and 7. Selsley Commons) Basingstoke Silchester Common Management Committee 4. Cornwall St Cleer and District Commoners Association 4. South Shropshire Stiperstones Commoners Association 7. North York Moors Stockdale Moor Commoners Association 4. Wales Swansea Commoners Association 2. Suffolk The Mellis Common Management Committee 4. Essex The Orsett Fen Right Holders 4. Cumbria Thwaites Fell Commoners’ Association 2. Cumbria Threkeld and Bassenthwaite Commons Association 2. Cumbria Uldale Commons Association 2. Cumbria Ulpha Commoners’ Association 2. Cumbria Watermillock Commoners’ Association 2. Wales Welsh Newton Common Residents Association 2. Norfolk West Winch Commoners 4. West Devon (Dartmoor?) Whitchurch Commoners’ Association 4. West Somerset Withypool Commoners Association 4. 6. Oxfordshire Wolvercote Commoners’ Association 4. 7. Wales Ysgwdffordd Common Graziers’ Association 12. App 1.3 Location Name of Organisation Source 1 Boards of Conservators Hawes, North Yorkshire Abbotside Conservators 8. 13. High Weald, East Sussex Ashdown Forest Board of Conservators 6. Surrey Banstead Common Conservators 2. North Yorkshire Beamsley Moor Board of Conservators 8. Somerset Burrington Common Conservators 8. London Chislehurst & St Pauls Commons Conservators 4. 6. South East Chilterns Conservation Board and Chilterns Commons 7. Network (Partnership of 22 local regional and national organisations. 200 commons within the AONB) Gloucestershire Cleeve Common Board of Conservators 8. Worcestershire Clent Hills Board of Conservators 8. (May now be Clent Hills Management Committee – no current grazing) Wales, Pencoed Coity Wallia Board of Conservators 6. 13. Cumbria Conservators of Crosby Garrett Fell 14. Cumbria Conservators of East Stainmore Common 14. Cheshire Conservators of Runcorn Heath 8. (Possibly managed now by Halton BC) Cumbria Conservators of Matterdale Common 14. Gloucestershire Conservators of Sodbury Commons 7. 13. Cumbria Conservators of Winton and Kaber 8. Cumbria Crosby Garrett Board of Conservators 8. Cumbria East Stainmore Common Board of Conservations 8. Warwickshire Gosford Green Conservators 8. (Ownership vested in Coventry County Council) Devon Great Torrington Commons Conservators 8. Essex Laindon Common Conservators 8. (Possibly Basildon DC) West Yorkshire Langbar Moor Board of Conservators 8. Surrey Oxshott Heath Board of Conservators 8. Essex Shenfield Common Board of Conservators 8. North Yorkshire Skipwith Common Board of Conservators (Managed by 8. Yorkshire Wildlife Trust) Sussex Sussex Downs Conservation Board, (160 commons including 6. Blackdown and Woolbeding) Herefordshire/Worcestershire The Malvern Hills Conservators 4. 7. Hertfordshire Therfield Common Board of Conservators 8. Anglesey, North Wales Tywyn Trewan Common Conservators 8. Essex West Tilbury Commons Conservators 6. Staffordshire Wolstanton Marsh Conservators, (Wolstanton Rural DC 8. appointed Conservators 1983) App 1.4 Location Name of Organisation Source 1 Ancient Management Systems (or own Act independent of 1876 Act) East Riding of Yorkshire Beverley Pasture Masters 13. Herefordshire Bringsty Common Manorial Court 4. 7. (currently no grazing) Newcastle upon Tyne Burgage Holders of Almouth Common 6. Wales Court Leet and Baron of the Manor of Mynachlog-ddu 7. North York Moors Danby Court Leet 6. Devon (Dartmoor) The Spitchwich Courts Leet and Baron 11. Pembrokeshire (Preseli Hills) Courts Leet and Baron of the Baronary of Cemaes 11. North York Moors Manor of Fyling Court Leet 4. Cornwall Manor of Roscraddoc Ltd (common land in East Cornwall – 6. established in relation to past mining interests) North York Moors The Court Leet of the Manor of Spaunton 4. Local Authorities owning and managing commons, or responding to consultations Greater Manchester Amberswood Common managed by Wigan MBC 8. Rother District Council Bexhill Down Common 8. West Midlands Birmingham City Council 7. Surrey Bisley Parish Council 7. Surrey Borough of Spelthorne 6. Norfolk Breckland District Council 7. Buckinghamshire Brill Parish Council 7. South Shropshire Clee St Margaret Parish Council, Clee Liberty Common 13. Warwickshire Carlton Parish Council 7. West Yorkshire City of Wakefield MBC 6. Northumberland Community Council of Northumberland, 7 coastal commons, 6. 68 coal measures Northumberland Gateshead Borough Council 7. Gloucestershire Gloucester County Council Environment Team. Five areas of 13. common land, some with agricultural grazing in conjunction with National Trust. Hampshire Hampshire County Council: Ewer, Selborne, Bransbury, New 7. Forest, Cadnam, Half Moon, Plaitford, Hightown Commons Herefordshire Herefordshire District Council 7. Gloucestershire Hillesley & Tresham Parish Council, Assley and Harely 7. Commons Worcestershire Kempsey Parish Council 7. Bedfordshire Luton Moors 8. Surrey Merrow Downs, Guildford Borough Council 8. Northumberland Northumberland County Council (96 commons) 7. Norfolk Norwich City Council
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Individual Aboriginal Rights
    Michigan Journal of Race and Law Volume 9 2004 Individual Aboriginal Rights John W. Ragsdale Jr. University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl Part of the Cultural Heritage Law Commons, Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation John W. Ragsdale Jr., Individual Aboriginal Rights, 9 MICH. J. RACE & L. 323 (2004). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol9/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of Race and Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INDIVIDUAL ABORIGINAL RIGHTS John W RagsdaleJr.* INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 323 I. THE DEVELOPING CONCEPT OF INDIVIDUAL ABORIGINAL R IGHTS ............................................................. 331 A. The Western Shoshone Experience Prior to the Indian Claims Commission Act ............................................ 331 B. The Indian Claims Commission Proceedings .................... 336 C. The Dann Litigation and the Establishment of Individual A boriginal R ights .................................................... 341 II. CONTOURS OF THE DOCTRINE ...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
    8113 Rules and Regulations Federal Register Vol. 86, No. 22 Thursday, February 4, 2021 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER On January 6, 2020, CCC published an wetland restoration, easement contains regulatory documents having general interim rule with request for comments administration action, grazing applicability and legal effect, most of which in the Federal Register (85 FR 558–590) management plan, and nonindustrial are keyed to and codified in the Code of that implemented mandatory changes private forest land; Federal Regulations, which is published under made by the 2018 Farm Bill or that were • Removed definitions for: Active 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. required to implement administrative agricultural production, forest land, The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by improvements and clarifications. This forest land of statewide importance, and the Superintendent of Documents. final rule adopts, with minor changes, projects of special significance; the interim rule. • Made changes to easement administration actions, including Discussion of ACEP (7 CFR part 1466) DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE specifying the criteria that apply to each ACEP helps farmers and ranchers type of easement administrative actions; Commodity Credit Corporation preserve their agricultural land and • Made revisions to the restore, protect, and enhance wetlands environmental markets section in 7 CFR Part 1468 on eligible lands. The program has two response to the 2018 Farm Bill; [Docket ID NRCS–2019–0006] components: • Removed the requirement that an (1) Agricultural land easements eligible entity provide evidence at the RIN 0578–AA66 (ACEP–ALE); and time of application that they have funds (2) Wetland reserve easements available to meet the minimum cash Agricultural Conservation Easement (ACEP–WRE).
    [Show full text]
  • Property Rights in Endangered Species the Wolverine Case Mark
    Document title: wolverine-2003-10-13.doc Property Rights in Endangered Species The Wolverine Case Mark O. Sellenthin and Göran Skogh* Linköping University * Mark O. Sellenthin is a PhD candidate at the Department of Technology and Social Change, and Göran Skogh Professor at the Department of Management and Economics, both at Linköping University. Email: [email protected] and [email protected] respectively. We are grateful for comments by Georg von Wangenheim, Boudewijn R.A. Bouckaert and an anonymous referee. 1 Abstract The Scandinavian wolverine is a predator that kills many reindeer belonging to the Sami, the indigenous population of northern Scandinavia. The wolverine is also an endangered species. Hunting is, therefore, illegal. The intended conservation is ineffective, however, due to poaching. In this paper we suggest a property rights regime for the protection of the endangered wolverine. We also want to contribute to a solution to a long-standing conflict between the urban South and the North of Sweden. General conditions essential for an efficient protection of endangered species by property rights are outlined. In the suggested regime Sami villages with reindeer herders as members become the owners of the wolverines. Reindeer breeding and wolverine protection thereby become joint operations. Remuneration for wolverine protection will be received from the Swedish State that pays for wolverines living in the grazing area. The system can presumably be financed by a redistribution of current subsidies to the Sami. Keywords: Property rights, endangered species, economic crime, Sami, reindeer 2 1. Introduction Since the Earth Summit of 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, the conservation of biological diversity has been an officially formulated, international policy goal.
    [Show full text]
  • New Buckenham Parish News
    New Buckenham Parish News November 2019 New Buckenham Parish News 2 November 2019 New Buckenham Parish News November 2019 Festive Double Edition Please note that the next issue of Parish News will be a double issue covering December 2019 and January 2020. Please send details of any festive events or news items to the editors before the copy deadline on 19th November. Full submission details can be found on the back cover. Parish News Committee Thank You This month’s issue is kindly sponsored by New Buckenham Parish Council. We are grateful to all our sponsors who help with the magazine’s production costs. If you would be interested in sponsoring a future issue of Parish News, please contact Mary Dowson (01953 860320 or [email protected]). Parish News Committee New Buckenham Parish News 3 November 2019 New Buckenham Players New Buckenham Players’ Christmas play this year will be The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis, adapted by Glyn Robbins and published by Samuel French. The play is directed by Sally Elvin and Ellie Hupton. The story is about four children who are evacuated during the Second World War. They arrive at a very large house. The occupants are a professor and his housekeeper, they welcome the children and hope that they will enjoy their stay. This is where their adventures begin, when Lucy opens a wardrobe door she discovers a magical place called Narnia! Ellie and I have had this play in mind to direct for several years, and we hope that you all enjoy the new experience of something modern and new.
    [Show full text]
  • Grazing Agreements
    2209.13_20 Page 1 of 114 FOREST SERVICE HANDBOOK NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS (WO) WASHINGTON, DC FSH 2209.13 – GRAZING PERMIT ADMINISTRATION HANDBOOK CHAPTER 20 – GRAZING AGREEMENTS Interim Directive No.: 2209.13-2020-2 Effective Date: Duration: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed. Approved: Date Approved: Associate Deputy Chief Posting Instructions: Amendments are numbered consecutively by Handbook number and calendar year. Post by document; remove the entire document and replace it with this amendment. Retain this transmittal as the first page(s) of this document. The last amendment to this Handbook was 2209.13-2005-10 to 2209.13_20. New Document 2209.13_20 114 Pages Superseded Document(s) 2209.13-2005-10 (Amendment 2209.13- 40 Pages (Interim Directive Number 2005-10 (09/09/2005) and Effective Date) 2209.13, 20 Contents 1 Page (Amendment 2209.13-92-1, 08/03/1992) 2209.13, 20 16 Pages (Amendment 2209.13-92-1, 08/03/1992) Digest: Extensively revises and updates Forest Service policy regarding administration of grazing agreements. Numerous substantive and organizational changes are made, including the use of five Standard Grazing Agreements on National Forest System lands. Major changes are as follows: 20 - Cooperation - Adds language clarifying the transition from private lands ownership under the Homestead Act, to the Resettlement Administration, to the Soil Conservation Service, and to the United States Forest Service and the relationship between the Forest Service and grazing associations which is formalized by grazing agreements. WO INTERIM DIRECTIVE 2209.13-2020-2 2209.13_20 EFFECTIVE DATE: Page 2 of 114 DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolving the Conflict Between Grazing Rights and Development
    University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Connecticut Law Review School of Law 2019 Reclaiming the Navajo Range: Resolving the Conflict Between Grazing Rights and Development Exra Rosser Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review Recommended Citation Rosser, Exra, "Reclaiming the Navajo Range: Resolving the Conflict Between Grazing Rights and Development" (2019). Connecticut Law Review. 405. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review/405 CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 51 AUGUST 2019 NUMBER 4 Essay Reclaiming the Navajo Range: Resolving the Conflict Between Grazing Rights and Development EZRA ROSSER Grazing is fundamental to Navajo identity, yet management of the Navajo range remains highly problematic. This Essay connects the federal government’s devastating livestock reduction effort of the 1930s with the inability of the Navajo Nation to place meaningful limits on grazing and the power of grazing permittees. It argues that the Navajo Nation should consider reasserting the tribe’s traditional understanding that property rights depend on use as a way to create space for reservation development. 953 ESSAY CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 955 I. NAVAJO PASTORAL IDENTITY AND LIVESTOCK REDUCTION . 957 II. GRAZING RIGHTS AND CONTROL OF THE LAND ....................... 968 III. REINSERTING A USE REQUIREMENT FOR GRAZING RIGHTS . 973 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 980
    [Show full text]
  • Securing Just Compensation for Private Beneficiaries of Federal Grazing Lands
    Buffalo Environmental Law Journal Volume 23 Number 1 Issue 1-2 Article 2 1-1-2016 Fixing Fuller: Securing Just Compensation for Private Beneficiaries of ederF al Grazing Lands Matthew C. Piccolo Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/belj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Property Law and Real Estate Commons Recommended Citation Matthew C. Piccolo, Fixing Fuller: Securing Just Compensation for Private Beneficiaries of ederF al Grazing Lands, 23 Buff. Envtl. L.J. 33 (2015-2016). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/belj/vol23/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Environmental Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FIXING FULLER: SECURING JUST COMPENSATION FOR PRIVATE BENEFICIARIES OF FEDERAL GRAZING LANDS Matthew C. Piccolo TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................... 33 I. JUST COMPENSATION AND FULLER...................... 34 A. UnitedStates v. Fuller................ ......... 36 B. Cases Rel atedto Fuller........................ 37 II. PRINCIPLES IN FULLER ................................ 39 A. Statutory Influence........................ 40 B . Revocability ................................................................. 40 C . Excludability ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Saving the American Rancher: Using Water and Custom to Recognize a Private Property Right on Federal Land
    1 Saving the American Rancher: Using Water and Custom to Recognize a Private Property Right on Federal Land ABSTRACT It is widely accepted that grazing on public lands is a privilege and not a right. However, this well-known concept must be questioned in light of Congress’s favorable treatment of customary practices before the turn of the nineteenth century. It was Congress’ intent to honor the customary practices of those who toiled tirelessly to turn the Great American Desert into an economically viable location for the American public. The rancher, who used public lands to graze his livestock, has not been given the benefit of customary usage of the range to the extent allowed by Acts of Congress. Courts and Congress used to favor miners, farmers, and other groups over the rancher. This adverse viewpoint substantially interfered with the adoption and enforcement of ranching custom on public land. Customary usage of the range, in particular water and practices of enforcing custom through stockman organizations and neighbor cooperation, were substantially ignored when a series of recent court decisions decided the fate of the rancher’s stake in public lands. Only one court correctly recognized an exception to the general notion that grazing is a privilege and not a right. This exception, granted implicitly by Congress through its goal of protecting customary usage of public lands, affords ranchers a forage right that is synonymous with a valid right-of-way for transporting water across federal lands. Congress transferred the rights-of-way to individuals in order to allow them to move water across the public lands, and in doing so, Congress also transferred a synonymous forage right.
    [Show full text]
  • Breckland Definitive Statement of Public Rights Of
    Norfolk County Council Definitive Statement of Public Rights of Way District of Breckland Contains public sector information c Norfolk County Council; Available for re-use under the Open Government Licence v3: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ Statement downloaded 16th January 2021; latest version available online at: https://www.norfolk.gov.uk/out-and-about-in-norfolk/public-rights-of-way/ map-and-statement-of-public-rights-of-way-in-norfolk/definitive-statements Document compiled by Robert Whittaker; http://robert.mathmos.net/ PARISH OF ASHILL Footpath No. 1 (South Pickenham/Watton Road to Houghton Common Road). Starts from fieldgate on South Pickenham/Watton Road and runs eastwards to enter Houghton Common Road opposite western end of Footpath No. 5. Bridleway No. 2 (South Pickenham/Watton Road to Peddars Way). Starts from South Pickenham/Watton Road and runs south westwards and enters Peddars Way by Caudle Hill. Footpath No 5 (Houghton Common to Church Farm) Starts from Houghton Common Road opposite the eastern end of Footpath No. 1 and runs eastwards to TF 880046. From this point onwards the width of the path is 1.5 metres and runs north along the eastern side of a drainage ditch for approximately 94 metres to TF 879047 where it turns to run in an easterly direction along the southern side of a drainage ditch for approximately 275 metres to TF 882048. The path then turns south running on the western side of a drainage ditch for approximately 116 metres to TF 882046, then turns eastwards to the south of a drainage ditch for approximately 50 metres to TF 883047 where it turns to run southwards on the western side of a drainage ditch for approximately 215 metres to TF 883044 thereafter turning west along the northern side of a drainage ditch and hedge for approximately 120 metres to TF 882044.
    [Show full text]
  • Breckland District Council (Ashill
    PARISH OF ASHILL Footpath No. 1 (South Pickenham/Watton Road to Houghton Common Road). Starts from fieldgate on South Pickenham/Watton Road and runs eastwards to enter Houghton Common Road opposite western end of Footpath No. 5. Bridleway No. 2 (South Pickenham/Watton Road to Peddars Way). Starts from South Pickenham/Watton Road and runs south westwards and enters Peddars Way by Caudle Hill. Footpath No 5 (Houghton Common to Church Farm) Starts from Houghton Common Road opposite the eastern end of Footpath No. 1 and runs eastwards to TF 880046. From this point onwards the width of the path is 1.5 metres and runs north along the eastern side of a drainage ditch for approximately 94 metres to TF 879047 where it turns to run in an easterly direction along the southern side of a drainage ditch for approximately 275 metres to TF 882048. The path then turns south running on the western side of a drainage ditch for approximately 116 metres to TF 882046, then turns eastwards to the south of a drainage ditch for approximately 50 metres to TF 883047 where it turns to run southwards on the western side of a drainage ditch for approximately 215 metres to TF 883044 thereafter turning west along the northern side of a drainage ditch and hedge for approximately 120 metres to TF 882044. The width of the path from this point is not determined as the path turns southwards to Church Farm. April 2004 Footpath No. 6 (Watton/Ashill Road to Footpath No. 5) Starts from Watton/Ashill Road north of Crown Inn and opposite Goose Green and runs westwards to TF 885046.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2019–2020
    Norfolk Wildlife Trust Annual report 2019–2020 Saving Norfolk’s Wildlife for the Future Norfolk Wildlife Trust seeks a My opening words are the most important message: sustainable Living Landscape thank you to our members, staff, volunteers, for wildlife and people donors, investors and grant providers. Where the future of wildlife is With your loyal and generous in the School Holidays. As part of our Greater support, and despite the Anglia partnership we promoted sustainable protected and enhanced through challenges of the current crisis, travel when discovering nature reserves. sympathetic management Norfolk Wildlife Trust will continue to advance wildlife We have also had many notable wildlife conservation in Norfolk and highlights during the year across all Norfolk Where people are connected with, to connect people to nature. habitats, from the return of the purple emperor inspired by, value and care for butterfly to our woodlands, to the creation of a Norfolk’s wildlife and wild species This report covers the year to the end of March substantial wet reedbed at Hickling Broad and 2020, a year that ended as the coronavirus Marshes in conjunction with the Environment crisis set in. Throughout the lockdown period Agency. Many highlights are the result of we know from the many photos and stories partnerships and projects which would not we received and the increased activity of our have been possible without generous support. CONTENTS online community that many people found nature to be a source of solace – often joy – in The Prime Minister had said that the Nature reserves for Page 04 difficult times.
    [Show full text]
  • Alachua County Cattle Grazing Business Plan
    Alachua County Eagenda.NET (FP1) Page 1 of 3 back to agenda composer help Item Author : View Agenda Item Agenda January 24, 2012 Regular BoCC Meeting Category Governmental Units Sub-Category Community Planning Group Item Type Title Approval of the Cattle Grazing Business Plan for Alachua County Forever Preserves. (Amended) Amount n/a Description Staff requests the Board approve the Alachua County Forever Cattle Grazing Business Plan. Recommendation The BoCC should approve the Alachua County Forever Cattle Grazing Business Plan and the associated principles, policies and directives. Alternative(s) BoCC should not approve the Plan. Requested By Ramesh P. Buch 264-6804 Originating Department Environmental Protection Attachment(s) Description Exhibit 1: Alachua County Forever Cattle Grazing Business Plan. Exhibit 2: Stewardship Strategy Memo to the BoCC 050928. Exhibit 3: Stewardship Strategy Memo to the BoCC 060217. Exhibit 4: Stewardship Strategy Memo to the BoCC 060717. Exhibit 5: Stewardship Strategy Memo to the BoCC 070907. Exhibit 6: Stewardship Leveraging 2010.Exhibit 7: License Agreement to Graze Watermelon Pond Metzger Tract. Exhibit 8: Costs for Metzger Tract Documents Requiring Action Exhibit 1: Alachua County Forever Cattle Grazing Business Plan Executive Summary Staff requests the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) adopt the attached Business Plan (Exhibit 1) to guide licensing grazing rights on ACF Preserves as an interim management strategy and cost-saving measure. Site-specific goals are contained in that site's BoCC-approved Management Plan and this Business plan is intended to provide the County with additional tools to appropriately manage property in tough fiscal times. If any Management Plan allows for grazing, then this Business Plan lays out the principles and strategies, and the use of the resulting proceeds from that operation.
    [Show full text]