40 Years of Protecting our Wildlife and Wild Places

r

Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust

Justification in Support of the Proposed Extinguishment of Bridleway ELH 1 at Coombe Hill Canal in the Parish of Leigh

July 2001 Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust

The Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust was founded in 1961 as the Gloucestershjre Trust for Nature Conservation. It is one of 46 county Wildlife Trust’s which seek to protect and enhance the UK’s biodiversity through a comprehensive programme of conservation activities, including land acquisition. The Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust owns or manages over 80 nature reserves in the county which cover in excess of 2000 acres of prime wildlife habitat.

The Trust is a voluntary organisation and a registered charity. We have 5500 members and over 500 active volunteers who help with all aspects of the Trust’s work including reserve management. The Trust operates a Learning for Life programme to inform and engage anyone in the county who wishes to become involved in wildlife conservation. Our vision is to achieve a Gloucestershire richer in wildlife that is sustained understood and cared for by the individuals, organisations and communities living here.

2. Coombe Hill Canal SSSI Nature Reserve

a) SSSI status

Coombe Hill Canal was first notified as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in 1954. At that time the SSSI was much greater in extent than it is today. It was notified under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. A copy of the original citation map is given in Appendix 1.

Unfortunately, the original legislation gave little actual protection to the site and in the 40 years which followed the designation, the conservation interest of the site was slowly eroded. Enhanced drainage as part of the overall improvement for agriculture of this part of the Severn Vale lowered the water table drying important wetland habitat and making the site unsuitable for breeding waders. The final ploughing of the meadows to the north of the canal further added to the degradation of the site and in 1995 the SSSI was renotified under the Wildlife and Countryside act (1981) with a significantly-reduced boundary acknowledging that much of the interest of the site had been lost.

The current SSSI citation is given in Appendix 2. The meadow land which formed part of the original SSSI was excluded from the revision and it now covers just the canal and two adjoining wetland areas linked by a ditch. In 1995

the site was considered to be of special interest for its “. . . assemblages of nationally rare and scarce invertebrates and nationally scarce plants. It is one of the most important known wetland sites for these features within

Gloucestershire.. . The site is also locally important for its diverse breeding bird assemblage, particularly resident and migrant warblers which make use of the scrub...”. The invertebrate assemblage is also associated with the SSS1’s scrub habitat. (see Appendix 3), which are specifically associated with the trees and scrub fringing the canal and which would be lost if bridleway ELHI were to be re-opened.

The turtle dove is a fast declining farmland bird now rarely encountered in Gloucestershire. It is known to have bred in the trees and scrub adjoining the Canal in 2000. (Its presence in 2001 was not determined due to the foot and mouth crisis).

The otter is making a natural comeback to Gloucestershire after a long absence. Now that water quality in English rivers has improved following their pollution with harmful pesticides in the 1950s and 60s, the otter is starting to recolonise its old haunts. Apart from extensive areas of wetland in which to forage, otters are dependant Upon dense scrub in which to lie up during the day. They are extremely susceptible to disturbance, especially by people and their pets. Under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) it is illegal to “damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place which tters] use for shelter or protection, or to disturb any such animal while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose”. The dense scrub which has become established on the southern side of the Canal has taken on a new significance in recent years, forming as it does a natural corridor in which otters can shelter and move along the reserve. There have been several sightings of otters at Coombe Hill Canal in recent years (See Appendix 4). Otters are becoming established in the Severn Vale (they occur and are thought to have bred at Ashleworth Ham on the opposite side of the river from Coombe Hi]] Canal).

The re-opening of Bridleway ELH 1 would remove important habitat for otter and turtle dove and such action, it is considered by the Trust, would have a significant negative impact on the biodiversity importance of the SSSI and nature reserve. It is also likely to be contrary to the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). d) Future proposals

In 2000 the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, with support from the Heritage Lottery Fund, English Nature and the Environment Agency purchased 138 acres of mainly arable land immediately to the north of Coombe Hill Canal (see Appendix 5). This area, once important wetland but now degraded, has been acquired for a unique and exciting project by the Trust. It is our intention to reverse the loss of habitat at this site and to re-establish wet grassland and excavate scrapes for breeding and visiting ducks and wading birds. We intend to create the right conditions for a number of key species including lapwing, snipe, curlew and redshank, as well as to re-establish the natural floodplain flora. We intend to encourage the natural return of otter and water vole as breeding species as well as to provide enhanced habitat for range of other plants and animals. Once complete we intend to create a permissive access through part of the site to a viewing hide where the public will be able to enjoy the wildlife in this newly created wetland nature reserve. The Trust is a strong supporter of access to the countryside. Its 80-reserve portfolio has almost total open access, making accessible to the public over 2000 acres of Gloucestershire’s finest wildlife habitats. Access is only restricted where such access would be detrimental to the wildlife interest of the site.

The Trust has ambitious plans for its Coombe Hill Canal Nature Reserve. We view the acquisition of 138 acres of

land recently as only the start of a Project to enhance a significant area of land — for the benefit of wildlife and people — in the Severn Vale. We hope to acquire further land in the area to restore lost wetland habitats and with this will come new permissive access. To this end the Trust undertakes to create appropriate permissive access on any new acquisitions it makes in the Severn Vale.

The extinguishment of Bridleway ELH 1 will not remove any amenity benefits currently enjoyed by the public. It will however, ensure that the integrity of the Coombe Hill Canal Nature Reserve remains and that the wildlife, which has been so drastically reduced in this area in the past 40 years, will be able to continue to thrive undisturbed.

Dr Colin Studholme Head of Conservation

16th July, 2001

COUNTY: GLOUCESTERSHJRE SITE NAME: COOMBE HILL CANAL DISTRICT: Tewkesbury File Ref S082/2

Status: Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) notified under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended.

Local Planning Authority: GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Tewkesbury Borough Council

National Grid Ref SO 870269 Area: 20.l6ha 49.8Oac

Ordnance Survey Sheet 1:50,000: 162 1:10,000: SO 82 NW, NE

Date Notified (Under 1949 Act): 1954 Date of Last Revision: 1974

Date Notified (Under 1981 Act): 10 February 1995

Other information:

Site boundary alteration (deletions).

1)escription and Reasons for Notification:

This site is of special interest for its assemblages of nationally rare and scarce invertebrates and nationally scarce plants. It is one of the most important known wetland sites for these features within Gloucestershjre.

Coombe Hill Canal is situated in a low lying area of the River Severn flood plain a few miles south of Tewkesbury. It consists of a 3.7 kilometre stretch of disused, partly overgrown canal flanked by ditches, neutral grassland, scattered scrub and trees, an area of inundation fen fringed by willows and a withy bed, The whole area is subject to extensive winter flooding.

The invertebrate interest centres on the beetle (Coleoptera)fauna. Many of the species, such as the rare click beetle Selatosomus nigricornis and the scarce ground beetles Agonum scitulurn and Bembidion cku/d, are dependent on the wetland vegetation along the canal margins and areas of fen and carr. Beetles associated with deadwood are also present including the rare longhorn beetle Granimoptera ustulata and the scarce beetles Anag~yptus rnysticus and Ischnomera cyanea. The adults feed on hawthorn blossom and umbellifers which are plenti~.il along the canal. Several of the rare and uncommon beetle species recorded from Coombe Hill Canal are not recorded from elsewhere within Gloucestershire.

Flies (Diptera) are also well represented including species such a~ the rare Rhaniphomyla /;hV.~oprocta and Scathophaga tinctinervis which appear to require areas with fluctuating water levels for their survival. Neither of these species has been recorded from any other site in the county. OPERATIONS LIKELY TO DAMAGE THE SPECIAL iNTEREST COOMBE HILL CANAL Notification Date: 10 Febr-uaiy 1995

Standard Ref No Type of Oneration

Cultivation, including ploughing, rotovating, harrowing and re-seeding. 2The introduction of grazing and changes in the grazing regime (including type of stock or intensity or seasonal pattern of grazing and cessation of grazing).

3 The introduction of stock feeding and changes in stock feeding practice.

4 The introduction of mowing or other methods of cutting vegetation and changes in the mowing or cutting regime (including hay making to silage and cessation).

5 Application of manure, fertilisers and lime.

6 Application of pesticides, including herbicides (weedkillers),

7 Dumping, spreading or discharge of any materials.

8 Burning.

9 The release into the site of any wild, feral or domestic animaP~, plant or seed.

10 The killing or removal of any wild animal* other than pest control.

11 The destruction, displacement, removal or cutting of any plant or plant remains, including tree, shrub, herb, hedge, and turf.

12 The introduction of tree andlor woodland management including afforestation, planting, clear and selective felling, thinning, coppicing, modification of the stand or underwood, changes in species composition, cessation of management and changes in tree and/or woodland management.

I 3a Drainage including the use of mole, tile, tunnel or other artificial drains. I 3b Modification of the structure of water courses (eg canals, ditches, drains)

including their banks and beds, as by re-alignment, re-grading and dredging. 13c Management of aquatic and bank vegetation for drainage purposes.

* ~animal inchides any mammal, reptile, amphibian, bird, fish o~ invertebrate. Glaucestershire Riodiversity Action P/an: Lowland wet ~rassIand

This Habitat Action Plan should be considered in conjunction with the Habitat Action Plans for: • Rivers and Streams • Standing Open Water • Woodpasture, paridands and veteran trees (in particular, old pollards) • Estuary (~in particular, upper-saltmarsh)

‘Links between the Lowland wet grassland Habitat Pl and Priority Species Action an $pedes Other habitat assocfatfons * Secondary association Skylark Alauda a,vensis mosaic Bittern Botaurus ste//ar/s RE/SOW Linnet Carduelis cannabina mosaic true-fox sedge Carex vu/p/na RS. SOW European otter Lutra /utra mosaic grey partridge Perdixperdix mosaic great crested newt Triturus aistatus mosaic a moss Weiss/a squarrosa FMJWO ~ For key to abbreviations see Habitat Action Plan Index (at the start of this section) 2 CURRENT FACTORS AFFECTING THE HABITAT

The driving force behind many losses of wet grassland in the past was UK and EC agricultural policies which promoted increased agricultural production above other considerations, including wildlife conservation. Conversion of grazed grassland to arable and the more intensive utilisation of remaining grassland were facilitated by the introduction of improved drainage infrastructure and an increase in drainage efficiency, which reduced the conservation interest of many sites. The introduction of agri-environment schemes has gone some way towards promoting positive management in some areas, but current factors considered to be impacting adversely on the habitat are:

2.1 Agricultural intensification including land drainage and inappropriate ditch management, ploughing and reseeding. cropping for silage, herbicide use and reversion to arable. 2.2 Modification of natural floodplain regimes, especially as a result of past insensitive flood defence works, and the isolation of floodplains from river flows. 2.3 Quality of floodwater, which may have a high sewage effluent content, and urban run-off. 2.4 River control including weirs which alter the saline/freshwater balance and prevent saline flooding upstream and impoundment which attenuates river flow. 2.5 Site fragmentation leading to hydrological instability and isolation making specialised species vulnerable to extinction. 2.6 Built development can lead to a direct loss of the habitat and alter hydrological regimes (e.g. new roads, supermarket developments). 2.7 Eutrophication arising from the intensive application of agro-chemicals and slurry affecting the diversity of ditch and sward plant communities. 2.8 Accelerated siltation of ditches derived from ploughed land 2.9 Degradation by neglect (in some areas). 2.10 Lack of positive management of important sites, especially arising from the inability to adequately control water levels. ill Erosion and sea level rise leading to loss of coastal grazing marsh. 2.12 Gravel extraction 2.13 Groundwater abstraction. 2.14 Recreational disturbance affecting the breeding success of ground pesting birds, especially from dogs.

Habitat Action Plan 6 Gloocestershire Biodiversity Ad/on Plan: Lowland wet g~-assland 4 OBJECTIVES

Swni’nai~’ of LIX Riadh’er~*y Obfrdives for lowland Floodplain and grazing marth • Maintain the ex/stthg habitat extent and qua//i)’ • Re/ia/il//tate /0. ha oIgrazing marsh habitat w/ilth has become t~o c*y~ or is intensively managed, by the year 20CC). rh/c would comprise 5000 ha already targeted/n ESAc. with an additional 5000 ha. • Begin creating 25CC ha ofgi-azing marsh from arat’le land/n targeted areas, in addition to that whfch will be achieved by existing ESA schemes, with the aim of completing as much as possible by the year 2000.

GLOUCESTEP$HIRE OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS

[U~i Maintain the extent of existing core sites and enhance quaIrt~y to achieve favourable conservation status*

Target: 100% of core sites under favourable management by 2005

42 Rehabilitate 500 hectares of lowland wet grassland by expanding and linking cores sites where restoration is feasible

Target: 500ha by 2008

4.3 Establish a major area for the conservation of wetland biodiversity in the Severn Vale J

Target: Feasibflity study by 2002; with and aspirational ta,~’etof a total area of at least 1000 hectares established by 2015

4.4 Restore breeding waders to their 1982 levels and seek a further 50% increase in breeding pairs

Target: 1982 levels for curlew and lapwing by 2003 and snipe and redshank by 2005. A further 50% increase in all species by 2010.

*See 1.5 for a definition of core and potential sfte~

Habitat Action P/an 6 Gloucestershire B/odiver.city Action Plan: European otter

EUROPEAN OTTER Lutra lutra 1 CURRENT STATUS

1.1 Only 40 years ago the European otter could be found throughout Britain. Since the 1950s there has been a dramatic decline in their numbers, and by the early 1970s they could be found in only a handful of English counties, with their strongholds remaining in the uplands of Scotland and Wales.

1.2 There is widespread evidence that the otter is coming back to the county of C,Ioucestershire, furthermore, the discovery of a dead lactating female otter suggests otters may be already breeding in the county.

1.3 The two major river systems, the River Wye and the River Severn provide the key routes by which otters are re.colonising the county. There are regular signs found on the River Leadon. the River Frome and their tributaries. There are also confirmed records from the Coin. There are several reported sitings from the River Wye. At present, however, a lack of evidence suggests that otters are still absent from the central Dean plateau.

1.4 There are also many unconfirmed reports from the Cotswold Water Park and the south Cotswold rivers, a number of captive bred otters have been released in the Upper Thames Catchment by the Otter Trust. This Species Action Plan seeks to promote the spread of otters through natural recolonisation and not through release of otters bred in captivity.

1.5 The Severn and its tributaries are recognised as a key recovery gateway’ linking the thriving otter populations of mid- wares to the waterways of southern and eastern England. Gloucestershire therefore, is an extremely important stepping stone for their expansion and recovery.

1,6 Links with Habitat Action Plans

Since otters occur in all wetland and riparian habitats this Species Action Plan should be considered in conjunction with the following Habitat Action Plans: • Rivers and Streams • Canals • Reedbeds • Standing Open Waters • Woodlands 2 CURRENT FACTORS AFFECTING SPECIES

2.1 Pollution of water courses.

2.2 Habitat loss through development, degradation of rivers, removal of bank side vegetation (e.g. for access, over-tidiness, flood defence work and cultivation). Impoverished bankside vegetation reduces the opportunities for breeding and resting.

2.3 Drainage, the loss of extensive wetlands associated with rivers, such as marshes, reedbeds and wet woodlands. These areas are crucial for establishing self-sustaining breeding populations.

2.4 Increased recreational use of waterways may disturb otters preventing colonisation or causing sites to be abandoned, The disturbance from regular dog walking in the vicinity of sites may be significant.

2.5 An increase in organised mink hunting may disturb otters preventing colonisation or causing sites to be abandoned. Natural otter bolts could be damaged when attempting to reach mink that have gone to ground.

Vertebrates - Species Action Plan 10 Gloucestershire Biodiversity Ad/on P/an: European otter

3.3 Advisory

3.3.1 Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust advise Local Authorities on planning applications through the Key Wildlife Site System where they are most likely to affect otters.

3.3.2 The Highways Authority have produced a Good Practice Guide design manual for roads which takes otters into account.

3.3.3 Various organisations such as The Severn Trent Water and Wildlife Tru~ts Otters and Rivers Project. GWT. EA and FWAG provide advice and produce advisory material on otter conservation.

3.4 Research and monitoring

3.4.1 The Severn Trent Water and the \X/ildlife Trusts Rivers and Otters Project is currently targeting the River Severn catchment in Gloucestershire for survey. Strategic otter surveys are undertaken every 2 years (1995. 97, 99) and provi de baseline information. More detailed survey work on individual catchments is also undertaken.

3.4.2 A National Otter Survey is also currently being organised (through EA and Otter Project Officers)

3.4.3 The Environment Agency is carrying out research into the eel population decline on the Severn

3.4.4 The Environment Agency collects otter corpses for post mortem and analysis at Cardiff University.

3.5 Communications and publicity

3.5.1 The Gloucestershire Otter Volunteer Group attend training days co-ordinated by GWT

-• including otter habitats, ecology and surveying and some have been trained in bolt construction

3.5.2 The Environment Agency also holds training days, and there is currently a proposal for an otter training day for Local Authority Officers.

3.5.3 Various media awareness work is currently underway. 4 OBJECTIVES

T4.1 To maintain and expand existing otter populations

Target: ongoing

4.2 To restore sustainable otter populations through natural colonisation throughout C.loucestershire

Target: by 2010

Vertebrates - Specie.c Act/on P/an 10 Gloucestershire 9iodiuer.city Ad/on P/an: Farmland birds

FARMLAND BIRDS

This Species Action Plan is a generic plan for all the farmland bird Priority Species. These are listed below: Skylark Alauda arvensfs (s) Grey Partridge Perdixperdix (gp) Corn Bunting Mi/aria ca/andra (cb) Linnet Cardue/h-cannthina (Ii) Reed Bunting Emberiza schoenidus (rb) Tree Sparrow Passer moriranus (ts) Bullfinch Pyrrhulapyrrhula (b) Turtle Dove Streptopella turtur (td) Song Thrush Turdus ph/lame/os (st) Lapwing Vane//us vane//us

CURRENT STATUS

1.1 It is now well established that farmland birds, a highly valued part of the countryside, have experienced dramatic population declines over the past 20 or 30 years. More species are declining on farmland than on any other habitat. All of the farmland birds in this action plan have declined by over 50% in the last 25 years. which for the Skylark represents over 1.5 million birds lost from the countryside.

1.2 These declines are indicative of a general decline in the wildlife of farmland and have been brought about by the broad changes to farming practice that has occurred largely as a result of post war agricultural policy.

1.3 The national decline in farmland birds is also reflected in Gloucestershire. Ground-nesting birds such as the skylark, grey partridge and corn bunting are all declining as a breeding bird in the county. The latter two species are uncommon with the corn bunting now largely confined to the Cotswolds. Turtle dove, tree sparrow and reed bunting are all becoming increasingly uncommon and localised. One remaining stronghold of the reed bunting is the Cotswold Water Park where numbers may be significant. Bullfinch and linnet are still widespread and fairly common throughout the county although the linnet less so in the Forest of Dean and Wye Valley. Although suffering a national dedine. song thrush populations appear to be stable in Gloucestershire although may have suffered localised declines.

1.4 FARMLAND BIRDS IN GLOUCESTERSHIRE’S NATURAL AREAS

Cotswolds More than 80% of this Natural Area is farmed. The mosaic landscape provides a pattern of cropped land with grassland, woodland and boundary features. This brings together, in dose proximity, a wide range of habitat features and feeding opportunities that are invaluable to farmland birds such as those included in this action plan. For example, the skylark, which nests in grassland but finds feeding opportunities in cereal stubbles. Although not currently on the list of Priority Species the yellow hammer is also a characteristic farmland bird with important populations in this natural area. ii. Severn and Avon Vales The large extent of lowland farmland provides feeding and/or nesting sites for birds such as these. Breeding birds here are of ‘High’ conservation priority and include most of those in this plan. iii. Dean Plateau and Wye Valley This Natural Area was formerly more significant farmland birds, with a good representation of all those species in this plan. All these species are still recorded in this area, population sizes and ranges are generally limited. This Natural Area is of particular important for turtle doves where scrub and young plantations are important for this species.

Vertebrates- $pecies Action Plan 2 Gloucestershire B/odiversi(y Ad/on Plan: Farm/and birds

2.7 Hunting in southern France, or other Mediterranean Countries affects migratory species (song thrush and also possibly linnet, turtle dove). 3 CURRENT ACTION

3.1 Over recent years conservation organisat!ons have become increasingly aware of the dramatic declines of many farmland species and their need for conservation action. Even without action, however, some birds may have benefited incidentally from initiatives carried Out for other species associated with similar habitats, such as:

• establishment and management of broadleaved and mixed woodland, especially • plantings of native seed- and berry-bearers~ • associated with wetlands, e.g. reedbeds. wet grasslands. saltmarsh and others • rotational set-aside schemes • new ESA prescriptions encouraging the retention of winter-stubbles and growth of spring-sown cereals; • Hedgerow Regulations will protect hedges likely to be favoured by most birds (for e.g. the bullfinch) • Nest box schemes (e.g. the tree sparrow) • Census work by BTO for corn bunting, and current GCT/EN/RSPB research project is investigating causes of the decline, particularly respect to agricultural intensification

• EN/cCr pilot study into summer ecology and habitat use of the turtle dove ha~ made recommendations for a full study that will determine importance of agricultural factors in the decline of the population. • Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust song thrush survey— primarily aimed at raising public awareness. • FWAG provide specialist advice on the management of farmland for wildlife and have worked cIo~ely over a number of years with farmers throughout Gloucestershire. 4 OBJECTIVES

4.1 In the short term, halt or reverse the decline in numbers and range of farmland birds so that the Breeding Bird Survey index is at least at 1996 levels.

4.2 In the long term, see a sustained recovery in numbers so that the Breeding Bird Survey index is at leact 50% higher than 1996 levels by 2008. 5 ACTIONS

Action

Potential deli~~erer~

Year for action to be complete or in place by LEAD Partners 20001 1 I 2 I 3 4 5 io 5.1 Policy ~nd Legislation 5.1.1 Consider how to substitute the benefits of set-aside MAFF/ BTO/RSPB.

when further reduced or abolished. FRCA GW~ ~‘ ‘ / ‘ V 5.1.2 Review the effectiveness of new arable prescriptions in the Cotswold Hills ESA and implement any changes MAFF/

FRCA RSPB. EN,

GWI ~‘ ~‘ “ necessary. 5.1.3 Where appropriate. incorporate new management prescriptions when reviewing Agri.Environment schemes. MAEF/

FRCARSPB. EN.

GWT “ “ ‘ ~‘ “ I I espedally the Cotswold Hills ESA. and Countryside Stewardship:considering the requirements of all farmland 1

Vertebrates - Species Action Plan 2

Mr R J Hawking Highway Records Environment Department Gloucestershire County Council Shire Hall S/G/COO/GWT GLOUCESTER GL1 2TH 14 April 2003

Dear Mr Hawking

COOMBE HILL CANAL SITE OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST: PROPOSED EXTINGUISHMENT OF BRIDLE WAY ELH1

Thank you for your letter of 18 March, with a consultation deadline of 15 April 2003.

English Nature is the Government agency that champions the conservation of wildlife and geology throughout England. Our duties include the designation of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and advising site managers and statutory bodies on their protection and positive management. English Nature supports increased access to the countryside to enable people to experience and benefit from contact with nature. English Nature has published a position statement on access from which tile following is an extract:

English Nature welcomes action to improve access on foot to the countryside and greenspace in towns and cities for quiet enjoyment and to enable people to experience and benefit from contact with nature. Wildlife and natural features play a major role in contributing to people’s quality of life. Access needs to be provided in ways which will ensure that nature continues to flourish and is able to contribute to the quality of the experience. In order to maximise the benefits of nature conservation to people, and to protect the natural environment, it is important to manage access provision. In this way access can be improved at the same time as conserving wildlife and natural features for current and future generations to enjoy.

In the majority of situations access on foot for quiet enjoyment along footpaths and rights of way does not pose problems for nature conservation. However, there are occasions when access arrangements need to be carefully designed and managed in order to protect the wildlife resource. This is because wildlife varies in its capacity to absorb visitor pressure and certain species such as ground nesting, roosting and wintering birds, are particularly vulnerable.

Coombe Hill Canal is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest for the following features:

• The variety of rare and scarce invertebrates associated with the variety of habitats present, particularly damp tussocky grassland. • The number of nationally scarce plants (five species at time of notification) that occur associated with the canal, towpath and ditches.

However, the SSSI as originally notified was more extensive and was important for other wildlife features that were damaged or lost before improvements to the laws protecting special sites. The potential to reverse wildlife loss is recognised by the Severn and Avon Vales Wetland Partnership in identifying this as a priority area for wetland habitat restoration. The Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust has successfully initiated an ambitious project to restore and recreate wetland habitats around Coombe Hill Canal to deliver national and local Biodiversity Action Plan targets. We advise that management of access and conservation of the Coombe Hill Canal area should take account of this wider context.

English Nature supports the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust’s application to extinguish this right of way on the grounds that:

1. Retaining the registration as a bridleway would require future reinstatement of the right of way to the full standards required by the Highways Authority,

2. It is unclear whether a right of way could be physically reinstated to the standard that is required. (We understand these require a 4 metre wide path with no overhanging vegetation to a height of 3 metres.)

3. If reinstated there would be a significant reduction in the extent of scrub and its value as habitat for breeding birds, including priority Biodiversity Action Plan species.

4. Reopening of bridleway ELH1 would result in two bridleways running parallel to each other less than 20 metres apart for a distance of two miles with the same start and end points and the same connections with the wider network of rights of way. We question whether there is a real need for the parallel route, especially given the commitment of the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust to increase managed access as part of their wetland projects.

For clarity, we note that the application does not directly effect the features for which the SSSI is designated and that our support relates to the impact on BAP species and features of local biodiversity value of reinstatement of the route.

Yours sincerely

M A Wilkinson Lead Officer Gloucestershire Office

Dear Mr Hawking

Proposed extinguishment of Bridleway ALH I at the Coombe Hill Canal in the Parish of Leigh

I refer to your letter reference 573/ALH1/RJH of 18 March 2003 on the above subject in which you state the extinguishment is proposed under the provisions of the Highways Act 1980.

This response will be set Out in two sections. The first will deal with the application in the light of the provisions of the Act cited. The second will refer to aspects of the justification submitted by the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust under cover of their letter of 14 March 2003.

The Provisions of the HiRhways Act 1980:

It is my understanding that the Highways Act 1980 provides, in Section 118, for the extinguishment of a path when it is “not needed for public use”. I cannot fmd any demonstration of a such case in the paperwork submitted by the Trust.

Sub-section (2) of Section 118 provides that consideration has to be given as to the extent the way would be used if the order is not made. In this case the usage would be zero were it not for Sub-section (6) which provides that “temporary circumstances preventing or diminishing the use of the path or way by the public shall be disregarded”. The leading case on this matter makes it clear that even though this section of ALH1 has been overgrown for many years, that is still a case of temp orary circumstances. In Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Bariy Stewart, 1980, Mr Justice Phillips considered this matter at some length and said that obstructions such as a pine tree with a trunk girth of approximately 2ft 6ins at its base, a laurel hedge 4ft wide and 12ft high and an electricity sub-station all constituted temporary obstructions. In the case of ALH1 the path has become overgrown in such a way that it is clearly a temporary circumstance.

Working for Every Horse and Rider

2

An extLnguishmeflt order is not made in the Interests of the landowner or the public, as are diversion orders under section 119 of the Highways Act 1980. The convenience of the landowner or occupier is not a matter that has to be considered. The detailed case on conservation grounds made bythe Glos Wildlife Trust is mostly, irrelevant to the reasons for an extinguishment order. The situation would be altogether different if a diversion was being proposed. Not only would the interest of the landowner be a relevant consideration but under section 1 19D to be introduced by schedule 6- 12 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, an SSSI such as Coombe HIU Canal will be able to have è diversion~on the grounds that “continued public usage of the highway is likely to cause significant damage to the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the site of special scientific interest Is of special interest.’ Parliament, in Its wisdom did not extend this facility to extinguishments. To promote an extinguishment under the existing section 118 would be a “back door” way of circumventing the will of Parliament.

The question of opening up the path goes back in our records to 1980 when we sought permission to clear by voluntary labour. The then owner of the canal refused permission and said he was arranging for other volunteers to do the work in consultation With Dr McGlone. Unfortunately the matter was not pursued by us until our Cleeve Group Footpath Committee was formed. A complaint to the County

Council was made on October 8th 1996 and the matter has been on the agenda at every meeting since. The County Council is guilty of negligence in allowing the path to be overgrown and for failing to clear it. For this it could be prosecuted in the magistrates court under section 56 of the Highways Act 1980 for having a highway out of repair. Not only has the path been out of repair but it is a complete obstruction to the exercise of the public right. Under forthcoming provisions of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the County Council could be in court under section 63 for failing to secure the removal of obstructions.

The absence of an acceptable diversion has caused a regrettable impasse between rights of way and conservation interests. The regulations under the CROW act (Schedule 9 -28G/H) governing the carrying out of works in an SSSI require application to English Nature. Failure to reply is taken as non consent but nevertheless the highway authority has the last word and the public interest in the right of way would ultimately have to prevail. The highway authority in such a case has to give 28 days notice of its operation and has to indicate the extent to which it has taken account of advice received from English Nature.

Hopefully the compromise solution proposed by the County Ecologist , and developed in detail under the Restoration and Conservation Plan, will be accepted by all concerned. We are not qualified to comment on the arguments the County Ecologist makes but it would seem that opening up the path would not be so disastrous ecologically as the Wildlife Trust makes out, It must be recognised that much interesting wildlife would evolve if man went away and left things to nature but giving up useful public rights of way in order to increase wildlife interest is not acceptable.

The additional reasons for seeking extinguishment advanced by the Wildlife Trust regarding the difficult terrain and toss of landscape will be commented on after a site meeting but one would have thought the terrain problem could be solved. The landscape change is a minimal disadvantage compared with the public benefits of opening up.

Yours sincerely

A.J .Drake Glos.Area Footpath Secretary Ramblers Association

continuous scrub by being taken looking at an oblique angle along the line of the path rather than at it from an angle of 90 degrees “Re-opening of the bridleway would remove habitat currently used by a minimum of 28 and maximum of 60 pairs of breeding birds”. I have studied the supporting material in the justification and the conclusion cited by the Trust seems to assume a physical process of re-opening which may well not be the case. At the western end of the section the width of the scrub is over 10 metres and much of it could remain untouched. Along all of the section between ALHI 0 and ALFII 2 a vemy substantial element of the scrub tree growth seems likely to be able to be retained and, in many places, all or almost all of it could be retained. • “Wintering tirnishes feed upon the large harvest of berries”. The extent to which this “harvest” would be reduced is not clear. • The importance of “tussocky grassland”. From my visits it appears to me that, along the line of ALH 1, where the scrub is dense there is no tussocky grass. Since the Trust refers to creating extensive new areas of tussocky grassland, it would seem that ALH1 is not significant in this matter. • “The proposal to leave a fringe of scrub along either side of the cleared bridleway would not be feasible in practice”. I can see that in some places it may not be possible to have a continuous fringe of scrub on both sides of the bridleway but, at present, there is not a continuous fringe of scrub along the sides of the route anyway. Along much of the route a fringe on both sides is certainly possible.

• “Towards the western end the strip of land ... narrows considerably and slopes towards both the canal and the Leigh Parish Drain”. I was only able to identify one place where the strip narrowed severely (there might be others but the nature of this one made that seem doubtful to me). This narrowing is at a point around 50 metres east of the junction with ALH1O and was caused by an incursion of the Leigh Parish Drain into the strip of land. I did not notice any other points along the Drain, where that happened. At the point where the strip narrows there is a. section of around. 3 metres length that is about 3 metres wide. This would not generally represent a problem for horses and could, if judged necessary, be fenced. Insofar as I could observe the rest of the strip I could see no problem with width for horses, even while retaining much of the scrub. • “Given the narrowness of the bridleway in this area the Trust asserts that any cleared bridleway would be unsafe for use today”. I do not agree with this view, • “The Trust intends to create a circular footpath”. This does not seem relevant to riders in the case of the extinguishment of a bridleway.

In conclusion I have to advise you that the British Horse Society is strongly opposed to the proposed extinguishment under the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 on the grounds of absence of need which has in no way been demonstrated by the applicant.

Yours sincerely

William Reddaway County Access and Bridleways Officer for Gloucestershire

It seems, therefore, that the level of “need” should be assessed. The foflowing should be considered in this;

• If the path were clear it seems likely that the usage would be about the same as that on the north side which is currently well used by both walkers and horse riders, Since there would also then be a circular route, which many people fmd more attractive than going out and back, the overall level of usage can be expected to increase. I have found this view supported when I have, on two afternoons, asked people on the north side if they would like to be able to use the southern path and make a circular route. • The present level of equestrian use is indicated by the fact that, while we have just had a very thy winter, there is a significant degree of poaching of the ground by horses along sections of ADE65, particularly around the junction with ALHI 0 and ADB66. The opening up of the blocked section of ALH1 would spread the equestrian use of these rights of way and reduce impact on the surface. • Horse riders are using the bridge across the canal at the junction with ALH12 to take advantage of the circular element that is possible at the eastern end of ALHI and ADE6S. • The degree of need for this bridleway which might have existed 20 years ago would have been very much lower than it is today. Two things have occurred over recent decades which make this the case; firstly, the volume and speed of traffic on both major and minor roads has vastly increased. In consequence it is no longer safe to take a horse on many roads where previously even inexperienced riders and young horses could travel safely. This has made access to safe off-road routes vital to riders, Secondly, the numbers of horses and horse owners has substantially increased around the country creating more demand for safe routes. May I refer you to my earlier letter of 7 October 2001 for more information on this, on the economic importance of horses to the rural economy and the correlation between horse ownership and access to safe riding?

There is, today, clear need for the section of ALFII between its junctions with ALH1O and ALH1 2.

Aspects of the justification submitted by the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust under cover of their letter of 14 March 2003.

While the above letter refers to ELH1, 1 assume this is a drafting error and it is ALFII to which Dr Studholme intends to refer. It seems useful to respond to a variety of points made in the submission though these do not relate to grounds for extinguishment under the Highways Act 1980;

On page three, under the Summary;

• The Trust has applied for extinguishment of Bridleway ELFJ1 (sic) in the interests of nature conservation”. It is my understanding that this is not grounds for extinguishment under the Highways Act 1980 and this is the Act which your letter has cited. I am aware that the need to protect SSSIs is recognised in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 where Schedule 6. 12. 11 9D (page 100 of the Act) provides for diversions “where continued public usage of the highway is likely to cause

significant damage to the flora, fauna, ,,....,,. features by reason of which the site of special scientific interest is of special interest”, The Act provides for diversion, not for extinguishment.

• “The scrub habitat along the route of the bridieway is extensive — tall, dense and stretching for over a mile”. I have walked both along the north side and along the edge of the drain on the south side and crossed onto the actual line of ALH1 in places where it is possible to do so without wading, The scrub is not uniformly tall and dense. For a distance of 170 metres west of the footbridge at the junction with ALHI2 it is indeed dense. For the next stretch the scrub is tall but sparse and a horse could be ridden down the middle of it today. It then varies. There are stretches with only scattered scrubby trees or bushes and no continuous cover, and stretches where it is thicker. It may be noted that photographs I and 2 attached to the Trust’s justification accentuate the impression of

—

j - , ,

, ‘

~ uiJ.

of Way Officer L~IcAJ~J~~NT Gloucester GL12TH

Your ref: Mark Parker/Mary King 18th April 2003

Dear Sir,

Extinguishment of bridleway ALH1 along the south side of Coombe Hill Canal

I was horrified to hear that the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust has applied for this bridleway to be extinguished. I am a regular rider along the canal and at least once a month I meet walkers and riders who with map in hand ask where the bridleway is on the other side of the canal. I explain that, like several other bridleways in this area, it is blocked.

One might ask why some one does not campaign for them to be opened. I have tried that, several years ago I wrote to the County Council with a complete survey of all the bridleways in this area and on the other side of the river showing which ones were passable and which were not and asking for some action .— the net result, as a remember, not even the courtesy of a reply.

The canal banic is impassable for horses in wet weather but during the summer it is one of the few off road areas where one can ride but there is no choice but to turn round at Coombe Hill and retrace your steps. If the bridleway was continued where it should be then it would provide a circular route which could be ridden from Apperley without having to do more than cross the main road. This is even more important when last year the occupiers of the field that goes over to the Leigh decided to fence it with temporary electric wire stopping access through there by putting the wire across the bridleway.

It is also ironic that the Wildlife Trust/County Council decided to purchase the land on the other side of the canal for the purposes of a nature reserve and it is quite clear from the signs that that was not to be a facility for horse riders. Is the closing of this path the start of a drive in the area to keep all horses off the canal!! When is the County Council going to review what riders need in this area? Your sincerely

i c Lon1~

20 Hall Rd LccMianipton Cheltenhatu OL ~3 OHE

7 October 7002 The Public Rights of Way Dt~partmcnt Gloucestorshi re County Cowici I Shire Ilall Wostgate Street Gloucester GLI 2TG

Dear person

BRIDLE PA1’HS AT C’OOMBI~ 11111 CANAL NATURE RESERVE

I undorstand that there is to be a meotIn~ on 14 Octobor 2002 to decide whether the cilsusocl bridle path on the south side ofCoombe Hill Canal Gloucester~hirc Wildlife Trust Nature Reserve and SSSI, going west from 600 lTIelers west ofth~ east. end ofths canal should be restored or extinguished.

As someone who has known the area since the I Q60s, wa~ for a time chairman of the reserve man8goment committee, and ha~ carried out wiidlifo surveys of the cana’ for the Gloucegterslur~ Wildlife l’n~st in 1Q85 and 2000 1 strongly support extin~uhhment of the bridle path bucause: a) i-c-opening would b~ damaging to the site, as it would ~dd significant disturbance to the birds breod.rTg along tho canal, and the sin&ler wiliter visitor birds which feed on the hawthorns, b) disposal of the trees, bushes and other vegetation removal of which would be Jiecessary to carry out the restoration would cause major problems for the Gloucest.ershire Wildlife Trust; for instance, the vegetation cannot be put into the bed of the canal, and c) there is already a perfectly good bridle way all along the north side which is regularly riddøfl and walked but is nOt over-uscd.

My wife, who is also active in the Giouces~.ershjre Wilduifc Trust and ha~ known the canal for as long as I have, shares these views.

b ~J’ & & b Lawrence 5 Golden Mil’er Road CHEL.TENHAM &los 6L50 4RD

t2~ October 2002 Mr R Hawking Highways 1~ecorcls &ios. County Councis Shire Hall Gloucester

~Ll2TH -

Dear Mr Hawking

Coombe Hill Canal

My family and I have, for the past 20 years or so, frequently walked along The south canal side and we are totally unaware that There is any footpath or bridleway on the north side. We have never seen anyone using the north side which in overgrown and impassable.

I believe there is a meeting to discuss The opening up of the north side. Please pass on my feelings at the meeting that I believe the north side should not be reopened and, if there is such a thing as a bridleway on the north side, it be extinguished. My feeling is that due to tack of use the ‘laber of bridleway has long disappeared and it’s extingushment merely needs to be formalised.

Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust advise me that they will soon create a new permissive footpath around Coombe Hill Meadows. Additionally that to re-open The bridleway would destroy large areas of important scrub used by breeding worb~ers and by otters as a daytime retreat.

My family and I fully support GWT in their application. Yours sincerely

G b lAwrence (Mrs)

Flat 3 42 London Road Chettenham Gloucestershire GL52 6DY

I ~ October 2002

Mr. R Hawking P~hti~ Rights ~f Way Section (iloucestershire County Ccun~i 1 Shire I Ia!! G’oucester

Dear Mr~ Uawking,

R~ Coombe HILt Canal (South Side) Bridiew~y

I Ieurn that the Glos. Wildlife Trust are app~ying thr part of this Bridleway to be extinguished.

I fully support this request of the Wi1dlik~ Trust. Although a lozig-time member of the Ramblers Association I believe the Trust’s case is reasonable and justifiable. I do walk along the adjacent parallel bridleway on the north bank and part of’ the visual pleasure is to see how nature ha~ rec1a~med the canal bed and the south bank — this view would be spoiled ~fth~ south bank bricileway was re-opened.

Yours sincerely,

Miss E. Lane.