Ive sat and watched this comments board with interest, and I can’t help feeling that whats going on is a fairly in balanced argument for those that have yet to make up their mind and are looking to make a decision by gaining more information. Surely leaving the comments against the petition may allow them to make the best informed decision.

Certain comments I know are very misleading, I am talking about the common not being managed for a 100 years. Because anyone with a modicum of conservation knowledge should know that a heathland is formed by grazing the land and this grazing kept the ability of trees to seed the area down, so removing the grazing increase the amount of tree cover. I point to the common across the main road into Stourport as an example where horses are still grazing the land but the amount of trees has not increased. Also given how long the common hasn’t been grazed the trees would have taken it over ages ago yet management in the form of removing saplings at an early age prevents the trees from over growing the area.

The comments about fire hazards are a little out as well given as the council for years has been doing controlled burning on the common for as long as I can remember and again anyone with knowledge of heathland knows that fire helps to regenerate an area of heathland hence the controlled burning. Just because you remove a tree doesn’t mean that the risk of fire is going to increase.

Shade and moisture control by trees is also an error in information because any moisture the trees provide in shade will be sucked up by the trees and their root systems not making it to the smaller plants, which as it happens living on a heathland will have adapted to lower availabilities of water in the soil due to how their roots systems interact with the fact that the water will drain out of the soil quite quickly.

The trees that grow specifically on the common are also non habitat specific and are invasive on the heathland. Silver Birch in particular is a major problem given how quickly it grows and spreads, apart from the fact it’s not actually a native species in Britain it is understandable why the council and many other land managers across the country wish to remove it.

Now I shall move onto the controversial area of Common Land.

“Currently, the general public have no rights to go onto common land unless the land is an urban common, or is crossed by public rights of way (and they follow the line of the right of way). However, the government's legislation in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to permit public access to open countryside may now also include access to common land.”

This is a direct quote from http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/Planning/LandAndPropertyDevelopment/DG_10026177 please go and read as Steve is suggesting for other links he is promoting.

Are also I suggest you read this document http://archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/documents/protected/common-land/common-land.pdf

which is the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) list of registered common land. If you go to page 19 and then go down 14th down you will find the common. If you then read across you will find who the registered owner according to this register is.

I hope that this response is met with some positive response from some (I’m not expecting it from some areas) and that it has given some people something to think about. I also hope that it isn’t removed for spelling or being off topic because it is spelt to the best of my ability and its wholly on the topic of the common. I must also add that I am not a council member or official but a resident of the local area and have been for nearly 20 years.

If it is removed I will simply repost for those that wish to have a read.

#108: -

Thank for your considered reply.

It serves no one to leave comments that are offensive and not constuctive in a debate. Comments that are not related to the topic but are personally insulting.

WCC themselves stated that the common has not been managed or grazed for 100 years. Heathland is not just formed by grazing, it occurs quite natrually in the correct enviroments. I discussed this topic with Francis Flanagan of Natural England. He could not explain why there are open areas that trees have not and will not colonise and the same for the heather. Heather is appearing on the site as new growth but not were there has been recent "management"

There has not been any significant grazing that can explain the commons current condition other than it has created it's own equelibriam. My view and others is that it is a mistake to rebuke this natural, evolved enviroment and create an entireley artificial one. The only benefit of such interference is to those who wish to artificially maintain these spaces. The ecological argument made by Natural England has no foundation in truth and I have yet to be challenged on my opinions scientifically.

 

Back burning was a way of having controlled fires instead of un-controlled fires on heathland, now banned, supposedley 33 cattle on a 200 acre site will do this job. Heathland is a similar monoculture to pine forests which are also  liable to fast spreading, uncontrolled fires. The Dorset wildlife trust lost 1/3rd of it's heathland subsequent to a programme of works as at Hartlebury. Amongst the victims of the fire were deer caught up in the  flames and roasted alive. Their grazing was probarly insuficient. Steve Davis of the Dorset wildlife trust said

"The fire has set us back 20-25 years".

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/9078840.Upton_heath_fire_latest__Morning_reveals_extent_of_arson_damage/

This is not in isolation, here

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/2011/05/04/strong-winds-fan-heathland-fires-115875-23106034/

and here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-11165970

and here

http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/gwentnews/9005239.Record_dry_spell_fuels_heath_blazes/

 

The common theme here is heathland, not forest fires. Fires will develop from to scrub to forest. Not the other way around. Increase heathaland, you increase the risk, it's fairly simple. If you would like to meet me and have a walk around the common I have a ground moisture probe. I can show you that there is sustantially more moisture adjacent and under all the trees of Hartlebury Common than elsewhere.

To say that there is less moisture under trees because the root systems drain the soil is untrue based on my findings. The average moisture count is at least 4-5 times greater under tree canopy with either succulent grasses and or dampleaf mulch.

The attitudes to silver birch are subjective, however thay have a place in our landscape and rhere presence at Hartlebury has not resulted in them dominating the landscape or outgrowing the much slower oaks, again contrary to the information we are being given.

I and others are appearing at the county court, kidderminster, Wednesday, 6th of July at 12.30

If you wish to attend you will see that the council DO NOT own hartlebury common. This is just one of many lies, frauds and deceptions they have made to insure that this scheme goes ahead at all costs.

That is why the injuction against us only restricts our further removal of the fencing, nothing else, no restriction of access to Hartlebury Common, nothing. The council are lying about every aspect of this scheme to everybody. The council are in fact in contravention of prosecutable offences subject to their interference. Even if they did own the common they are in still in serious dereliction of there responsibilities and have broken the law. I have been contacted by Tom Pollard from WCC who falsley claimed that WCC owned the common when he was notified of our intention to start removing the fencing, I have that document in my possesion, yet another fraudulant claim, this time from WCC's legal representative

Not because of ecology but because when they create these frankenstien monsters of habitat, they have to be maintained like that forever.

This is part of a message I sent to Liz Nether

"I would like Liz Nether, Countryside Sites Team Leader of Worcester County Council, to declare how she is fulfilling Articles 8 and 9 of the CBD as set out below and also how she proposes to handle the soil erosion which is already accelerating on the Common. Laying cut birch and tasking rangers to relocate trailers of earth is laughable if it was not so sad and illegal. A member of the public, and others have noticed the decline and erosion and mentioned it too me whilst I was being interviewed this morning by the BBC"

The work is not even being carried out in acordance witht the Rio accord where the funds derive from, which states.

"For the sustainable preservation of natural enviroments and natural habitat in there natural places"

 

I have over 30 years PRACTICAL experience in conservation and restoration. I can spot a cash junket from a mile away, the welfare of the common has nothing to do with this plan

 

Steve McCarron

 

 

 

 

 

 

#108: -

Birch certainly is a native species!!! It was one of the first trees to cover the landscape after the ice receded from the last glacial period.

It is interesting that those who parrot dogma about heathland seem also to be ignorant about our native species, because i have come across that ignorant assertion before!