Natural England will NOT enter into any new HLS agreements involving installation of horse gates under this round of HLS which finishes in 2014.

Says Jane Houghton

We are saddened to hear of any injuries to horses or riders and do not sponsor dangerous gates. Our supplied standard EU approved specification (which is part of the legal basis of the Higher Level Scheme agreement) states:

The bridle gate must be adequately stockproof while providing good access for all legitimate users. Work should be carried out to the standard required to safely perform its intended function for the duration of the agreement. The design must be appropriate to the area and sympathetic to the landscape setting.

You should ensure any relevant consents are gained before carrying out the work e.g. Scheduled Monument consent from English Heritage. The location and construction of the bridle gate must not damage any sites of archaeological, historic or ecological interest.

The bridle gate must be at least 1.5m wide. BS 5709 specifies the minimum dimensions and timber sizes. All timber should be fully peeled and tanalised or treated with preservative. The hanging and shutting posts must be adequately embedded in the ground and the gate hung so that it swings shut with a self-closing action. It should have vertically extended shutting fasteners that are accessible from horseback, and be positioned so that there is space for the horse to stand to the side while the rider leans over to open it.

The gate should be hung so it closes with little noise to avoid scaring horses. No nails or rough sawn edges should be left exposed.

An 'easy opening' gate uses a two-way gate latch that is suitable for use by horse riders (without dismounting), pedestrians and disabled people and can be easily reached by people in wheelchairs. This should be provided wherever possible to facilitate access by those with reduced mobility.

The bridle gate must be maintained in good condition for the life of the agreement.

I have highlighted the sections in yellow that specify the requirement for the gate to safely perform its intended function, to close with little noise to avoid scaring horses, and to be maintained in good condition for the life of the agreement.

Natural England will not enter into any new HLS agreements involving installation of horse gates under this round of HLS which finishes in 2014.

There are approximately 42 existing HLS agreements under which the holders have been funded to provide horse gates but they have not yet claimed their funding which leads us to conclude that the horse gates may not yet have been installed.

We expect these gates to be installed during 2013. We aim to write to each of the agreement holders with further guidance to emphasise the importance of the safety measures to horse gates which are already stated in the agreement, and advise them to undertake consultation with local horse riders on the design and installation of horse gates. We will recommend that a hydraulic gate design, to ensure slow closing, is considered alongside other designs.

We have checked the HLS agreement for Chobham Common, and there are no horse gates included in this agreement. I.e. Natural England is not responsible for any horse gates on Chobham Common. I understand that the Surrey Wildlife Trust installed a small number of horse gates following the Public Inquiry.

- Her claims are disingenuous

- One (illegally installed) gate cut a horse open almost the bone.

Says Craig Weatherhill

She's left out the requirement - ignored by Natural 'England' in West Penwith - that there should no barbed wire within 1.0m of a bridle gate -

Her claims are disingenuous. In West Penwith, these gates are installed by NE under a scheme calling itself HEATH. This claimed to be an environmental scheme to "restore the sea of heather" (despite the fact that we have no shortage of heather). In fact, HEATH was nothing more than an exercise in enclosing previously open land. It achieved no more than that until expiring on 31.12.2008, then all HEATH areas became HLS areas overnight.

The West Penwith bridle gates were installed without any regard to British Standards. All were condemned as "dangerous" by the BHS. Rough granite blocks dragged in to serve as "mounting blocks" were, in many cases, placed on the wrong side (right hand side) of the path looking away from the gate! The BHS assessments were correct. One (illegally installed) gate cut a horse open almost the bone.

In 2008-09, when these gates went in, a NE official assured the public, in writing, that any concerns regarding them would be addressed and rectified immediately. The complaints and concern have been many but - 4 years on - not a scrap of remedial work has ever been done. All we have ever got from NE is the extended and raised middle finger.

The correspondent gave a standard for gates BUT does that supercede the HMPI requirement for NE to install BS gates(BS and Best Practice being synonymous according to HMPI) or are NE making up their own rules yet again?

Says Steve Yandall

Under the Equality Act 2010, which I alluded to this morning,access to the disabled is guaranteed BUT how can inquisitive cattle and the disabled safely mix and can NE extend funding to include hard parking,disabled friendly gates, flat surfaced pathways etc -all prerequisites of legal compliance with equality?

Under the Equality Act 2010, which I alluded to this morning,access to the disabled is guaranteed BUT how can inquisitive cattle and the disabled safely mix and can NE extend funding to include hard parking,disabled friendly gates, flat surfaced pathways etc -all prerequisites of legal compliance with equality?

The correspondent gave a standard for gates BUT does that supercede the HMPI requirement for NE to install BS gates(BS and Best Practice being synonymous according to HMPI) or are NE making up their own rules yet again?