- The fact that NE officers are not duty bound in there internal instructions to take that into account is the major failing of the approach by NE and conflicts with the Agency’s statutory remit under the enabling Act

- We know that existing public access by right suffers from displacement as a result of the introduction of grazing regimes and that those who manage the land ostensibly for public recreation or other reasons are ham strung for funding so that the only monies they can achieve are those associated with stewardship and that means the introduction of fencing and grazing -

This situation has led to a situation where since the inception of NE by my rough calculation over £3million pounds of Pillar II modulation has been spent on capital provision to enable existing public rights of access [eg highway and s193/CA1899] and probably over £10million per year for statutory duty.

Says Bob Milton

Thank you for your clarification. Just one point Bagmoor common is owned by surrey Wildlife trust but Thursley common which is part of the combined management but a major part of the unit is owned by Natural England and the large balanced is owned by the MoD and is part now managed by Natural England so statutory duty does not allow EU funding under stewardship.

The equestrians both here and on Yateley common and on lowland heath commons in general in the south are not listened to as part of any consultation because as explained there is a presumption by NE that all lowland heaths will be fenced and grazed. This would not matter if the land was private but the major use especially in the south on lowland heath commons as well as others such as Ashdown Forest and Telscombe Tye is that they are held for public recreation or military training. Even where not they are major places of resort for the public and where s193 / CA1899 etc applies.

The fact that NE officers are not duty bound with in there internal instructions to take that into account is the major failing of the approach by NE and conflicts with the Agency’s statutory remit under the enabling Act.

What has happened in my view is that NE has promised the Treasury to meet certain targets or objectives to enable funding for only one part of its statutory duty. It has no cross compliance requirement within these targets or objectives to promote or protect existing public access.

We know that existing public access by right suffers from displacement as a result of the introduction of grazing regimes and that those who manage the land ostensibly for public recreation or other reasons are ham strung for funding so that the only monies they can achieve are those associated with stewardship and that means the introduction of fencing and grazing with all the attendant issues of self closing gates and retraining for equestrians, dogs on leads for pedestrians [unless being attacked by cattle (HSE 17ew)] and cattle grids for private easements even though statutory duty requirements do not allow EU money to be used in this situation.

As for Yateley there is an added complexity to the situation where as is usual it seems no internal agreement has been signed with the registered commoners as is required by the regulations and as a result of the overriding need under the Habitat Directive for any agreement to be enforceable. This we now know is the same on Greenham, Padworth, Chobham and Hawkesbury for example. There is also the added dimension on Yateley and I am sure on others that Hampshire CC has being claiming Single Farm Payment as well as stewardship yet has admitted as both land owner and Highway Authority that they have allowed and actually been complicit in the illegal obstruction of ten rights of way. The fact that SFP and Stewardship require that rights of way are maintained open and free to use if payments are to be made seems to have got lost in the race to meet targets. The excuse from HCC as landowner is that opening the rights of way on the definitive line will compromise the SPA. Is this statement one that has the basis in law and is it as a result of direct advice from NE officers? I note that NE has not chosen to use its powers to divert.

Given the difficulties met by equestrians with stewardship gates as well as under ordinary farm situations and the displacement effect surely a way can be found to meet the conservation needs of NE whilst at the same time not compromising existing public access rights and use. The duty should be on NE to take into account existing public access rights and not leave it to others to address the issue after the agreement has been signed as seems to be your inference below. Management is not just conservation but includes existing public rights which at the moment are ignored until it is too late and then with the complicit help of PINS invariably grant self closing gates and who will not allow NE advice to be questioned or be discarded even if they agree as the Inspector did on Chobham common that extensive grazing per se would not bring the common into favourable condition.

This situation has led to a situation where since the inception of NE by my rough calculation over £3million pounds of Pillar II modulation has been spent on capital provision to enable existing public rights of access [eg highway and s193/CA1899] and probably over £10million per year for statutory duty.

I have recently come across a number of grazing schemes where gates remain closed, and therefore an obstruction to lawful use, even when there are no animals grazing, surely this cannot be correct. I have also noticed that grazing seems to be done in isolation from the management of the rapid growth of birch, pine, gorse and rhododendron as well as in some case ragwort. This seems to indicate to me that the statement that grazing is just one tool is being ignored by managing officers and that it is just a way of funding local authorities and others like the MoD in meeting statutory duty and NE targets. We still have no science that supports Isabel Alonso’s beliefs on extensive grazing in fact the opposite from Professor Newton or that there is any cost benefit over and above that of exempt grazing.

There is a need to address the pressures of internal funding policy to which stewardship seems to be capital rather than revenue biased when reviewing funding. Extensive grazing is capital and exempt grazing is revenue

The issue of ragwort is one that there is a major internal conflict of interest within NE. I am involved in this issue on two commons [Greenham and Staines Moor/Shortwood] where animal welfare has been compromised and has already led to the recent death of at least one commoner’s horse and the removal of commoner’s cattle on the advice of the vet on Shortwood.