Fact Checking Our Friends

The Friends of Latchmore have created a Crowdjustice crowd funding page to fund future legal challenges to the restoration project at Latchmore Brook.  It contains some of their most problematic statements to date.  The Crowdjustice site have told me that they do nothing to verify any case promoted through their “platform”, that this is entirely up to the claimants and their legal representatives.

Some of these mistakes might be forgiven in a neophyte, but the authors of these pronouncements have been dogmatically stating their version of this case for several years, clearly having time and motivation to properly research, so we must take some of these as wilful misrepresentations.  Given that their page is asking people to donate money to their cause, I should hope that the more sensible leaders of the Friends of Latchmore ought to feel a little bit queasy over these inaccuracies, which could lead to allegations of a scam.

While we don’t believe there is malicious intent, even the possibly unintentional errors have the feel of those grasping at straws for virtually anything that supports their case, whilst systematically ignoring everything that doesn’t.  We leave it up to you, dear reader, to decide how innocent these mistakes are.

[What follows is the text taken from the site as seen on 18th September 2016, highlights in bold and numbered annotations are ours.]

Stop destruction of New Forest habitat  The Forestry Commission, New Forest NPA and the Verderers are spending EU money infilling Forest streams and destroying protected wildlife. Why this case matters The Verderers of the New Forest, The National Park Authority and the Forestry Commission have formed a partnership and obtained significant funding running into millions of pounds from the EU to 'Restore' wetlands under the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme which is an Agricultural subsidy meant to help British farmers(1), The partners described the whole New Forest National Park as a 'farm' in order to claim this money(2) but it has turned into a massive engineering project infilling many streams with waste products(3) in a misguided attempt to restore them, despite their having a wonderful biodiverse habitat supporting many of our rarest and most protected wild species(4).

(1)   The Higher Level Stewardship Scheme is an Environmental subsidy, the key give away is the word Stewardship which indicates a range of Environmental Stewardship programmes.  Entry Level Schemes include subsidy to farmers laying hedgerows, or planting wild flowers beneficial to wildlife on fallow fields.

(2)   The partners would not need to describe the National Park as a “farm”.  The HLS is eligible to both farmers and land managers.  Common land is eligible. The HLS Scheme for the New Forest only applies within the perambulation of the common land, and so does not include the whole National Park.  DEFRA does occasionally treat the New Forest Common lands as one unit, but this is for things like the Single Farm payment scheme (an actual Agricultural subsidy) and to make the cattle movement rules practical for commoning (movement restrictions which apply elsewhere to prevent spread of TB and other vectors would cripple the relative freedom of the cattle on the commons and their movement back to nearby free holdings).

(3)   “Waste products” – this is an utter misrepresentation – the materials for infill include hoggin, washed gravel, clay and heather bales.  The materials used must be approved by Natural England.  Elsewhere the FoL refer to the material as “alien”, the gravel is taken from the same geological strata (on earth) as that on which the New Forest rests.  If we’re being charitable (why shouldn’t we be?), they may have taken the term “rejects” as applied to some of the gravel.  This refers to gravel not pretty enough to be sold in garden centres, but perfectly beautiful enough to be used for infill.  This tabloid culture of infill shaming must be stopped.

The Forestry Commission have just submitted a Planning Application for Latchmore Brook, 3 miles from Fordingbridge, to carry out major works involving 7 km of the stream and importing nearly 100,000 tonnes of infill material.  This area is an SAC, SPA, RAMSAR and SSSI site and thus should be afforded the highest level of protection(4) but the New Forest National Park Planning Authority has not refused any of the previous Planning Applications for these engineering works, as it is one of the partners of the scheme.(5)

(4)    The project is being done at the behest of and with the approval of Natural England.  The Forestry Commission as the land managers of the New Forest SSSI are obligated to remedy the Condition Assessment prescribed by Natural England, part of their duties to monitor and protect SSSI.  Natural England are then asked to give consent to the proposed solution, there is no guarantee of this as the proposal must pass another set of criteria on top of addressing the underlying problem.  Natural England support the project.

(5)    The National Park Authority, Verderers and Forestry Commission are only "partners" in the project inasmuch as they are the statutory bodies required to be on the project board, and only benefits the Park as it successfully fulfils their statutory purposes "to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area".  The NPA is represented on the board by their Chief Exec Alison Barnes.
The NPA's Planning Committee is made up of 14 of the 22 members of the Park Authority.  The Committee is mostly local Parish, Town, District and County Councillors (12) and 2 Secretary of State Appointees (through DEFRA).  As with any Planning Authority they have strict criteria they must adhere to, and whilst they may seek advice from the civil servant staff of the Authority including their own ecologists and the Chief Exec, the decisions are theirs.  No previous scheme has been refused because, like the present one, they are worthwhile restorations to improve the habitat, and have met the criteria for planning approval.  There is no conflict of interest as the Chief Exec on the board of the project serves the members of the Authority, not the other way around.

The Forestry Commission still uses the same methods for each new project despite substantial evidence of serious adverse effects(6) on the biodiversity of large areas caused by previous failed restoration attempts(7).

(6)    They do not have substantial evidence, in fact, in this short a time after the completion of previous projects, results are promising, but there is no substantial amount of data, which would require years of monitoring to support claims.  An encouraging independent study by the River Restoration Centre and Jonathan Cox Associates, The New Forest Wetland Restoration Review, surveyed post restoration sites from 2004.
(7)    This is one of the laziest and unsubstantiated claims, none of these are considered failed.  Where they claim restorations are failed they provide no evidence or relevant criteria to make this claim.  The best they seem to be able to do, is to take photos of a dry stream bed before the project has finished bedding in and ignore that this is not its constant or eventual state.  Not to mention that Ditchend Brook is situated in a valley where streams notoriously run dry in Summer (oh, we did mention that).

Ditchend Brook in normal conditions
photo courtesy of the Forestry Commission

CAPTION: "Failed Restoration" [Friends of Latchmore photo of Ditchend Brook as a dry stream bed, looking like a gravel path, above you will see instead a less shocking photo of Ditchend Brook.  An NFA member reported a visit from earlier this year finding numerous small fish, newts and tadpoles in the very spot of the FoL photo. ] It's not just the fragile ecosystem which is at risk, but there are also precious archaeological sites(8) as well as significant geological areas, not to mention the serious knock-on effect the works will have on tourism and local businesses as well as the lives of local residents - massive tipper lorries each carrying in excess of 30 tonnes of material will be driving down narrow Forest lanes(9), putting the lives of the ponies and cattle at risk(10), as well as walkers, horse riders and cyclists, not to mention the potential for structural damage to properties(11) adjacent to the planned routes.

(8)   The New Forest History and Archaeology Group have raised issues with the archaeological survey conducted to support the Environmental Impact Assessment.  We believe these concerns may be mitigated and rectified, and we would support all interested parties to achieve this.

(9)    Slight error, the tipper lorries proposed have a maximum load of 20 tonnes.  Odd though, as if their weird claim were true, it would mean at least 33% fewer HGV movements.

(10)    The same drivers will be used, and will be made aware of the "possible pedestrians, cyclists and livestock in the carriageway", there will be "speed restrictions for delivery vehicles;" - 15mph on the Forest's gravel tracks, 5mph under the ordinary 20mph restriction under the byelaws, and "traffic management with radios on the Ogdens route" as well as term time restrictions for school run to local schools.  Consider the number of large scale refurbishments to properties along the route, which would have had none of these extra precautions taken for their HGV movements, and no protest over these.

(11)    Vibration study was carried out as part of EIA.

How you can help We need your help to stop what Sir Desmond Swayne MP calls 'state-funded vandalism' (12)

(12)    This quite vocal campaign group is in his constituency.  His views about protecting the Forest though are inconsistent.  In early 2011 at the time of Env. Minister Caroline Spelman's disastrous proposal to sell off the public forests, only one of the two New Forest Conservative MPs (plus one from nearby Romsey) rebelled against their party.  It was Rt Hon Dr Julian Lewis, not Desmond who opposed the sell off.

We are crowdfunding to pay for legal representation and expert opinions to mount significant legal challenges and if necessary to support a possible Judicial Review. We hope to challenge the legality of whole scheme and require the Authorities to put a stop to interference with balanced ecosystems (13) on this massive scale.

(13)    The ecosystem is not balanced, it was broken when Victorian engineers diverted the watercourse away from the natural meanders into artificial straight drains.  The project seeks to undo this damage to bring balance back to the ecosystem of the area.

[for space we've omitted two paragraphs, one about their legal firm, and one about the author of the page]

Fast facts - one of the most iconic and beautiful streams in the New Forest will be irreparably damaged (14) - the Forestry Commission have just submitted a Planning Application to the New Forest National Park Authority

(14)    Clearly the author does not understand the difference between fact and unsubstantiated conjecture.

The New Forest Association support the Latchmore Brook Restoration

The New Forest Association has been following the progress of stream restoration work done by the Forestry Commission carefully over the years. The Association backed the first of these projects in 2005 with some trepidation. Confidence has grown as the results came through and management techniques evolved. The work has been carried out sympathetically and has done much to enhance the overall environment for the long term.

Our ecologists agree with Natural England that these works should help restore these precious habitats to “favourable” condition. We are delighted with the results of similar completed restorations, we are enthusiastic in our support for this proposal. We join our support to that of the Hampshire and IOW Wildlife Trust, Ringwood Natural History Society, and the British Dragonfly Society, amongst others.

Background

Natural England do condition assessments on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). They found that for many of those sites in "unfavourable" condition on the Forest, a contributing factor was previous drainage works (many Victorian). As the Land Manager of the Crown Lands of the New Forest, the Forestry Commission is obliged to improve units in adverse condition. The programme of wetland restoration was seen as the best response to the condition assessment. The latest tranche of these is being done through the High Level Stewardship Scheme which is part of the wider Environmental Stewardship subsidies (from the EU). These projects are controlled by a project Board whose voting members are the statutory bodies with responsibilities for the Crown Lands: The National Park Authority, the Forestry Commission and the Verderers of the New Forest. Consultation on versions of the scheme at Latchmore has been going on since 2009. Along the way, the proposal was expanded to include all the areas in the stream catchment above Latchmore so that all the project areas that would be needed for eventual success could be rolled into one larger Planning Application. Making the application that size has also meant extra due diligence including a voluntary Environmental Impact Assessment, and extensive consultation.

The project will decrease flood risk downstream. An elementary understanding of hydrology would tell you that taking a straightened Victorian drain, and replacing it with curving meanders will slow down the egress of water from the system. Birmingham and So'ton Uni's used the river catchment upstream of Brockenhurst, where previous restorations under the HLS, Final 4000 and LIFE3 programs have been completed over the last decade, for a study showing "flooding alleviated by targeted tree planting and river restoration".

The British Dragonfly Society response to the planning application concludes, "The removal of shade by clearing trees and scrub, the reinstatement of meanders and the other associated works to restore the site will, we believe, improve the opportunities for Southern Damselfly to spread.”

Friends of Latchmore

We have no doubt that the “Friends of Latchmore” and their supporters love the Forest. However, their leaders have waged a one-sided campaign full of scaremongering unsubstantiated claims of ecological disaster. This is strong emotive stuff, if we took what they say at face value, we’d join their barricades, but their black and white view of the matter stifles debate and cheats their followers of the full view of the facts. They don’t even try to discount the great support from ecologists and conservation organizations, they ignore it, and they certainly don’t mention it to their followers. Nor will they concede the great successes of previously completed restorations. They have the gall to selectively quote, on their website, the British Dragonfly Society, who support the project.

Not that they don’t have valid points to make, but they bury them under a white noise of hyperbole, and irrelevancies. Instead of making points constructively and proportionately, they, in their clutching at straws manner, nitpick any small mistake with previous restorations as though it were a thorough refutation. These are the kind of minor notes the NFA and others would simply press upon the FC to add to their maintenance program.

the Brook in normal conditions
photo courtesy of the Forestry Commission

There is one stream, Ditchend Brook, which had work completed in 2014, which hasn't bedded in as quickly as some of the other projects (which, frankly have bedded in much more quickly than expected). When particularly dry, there is a stretch that the FoL like to photograph and parade as a "failed restoration" (although they offer no criteria for this "failure"), they are seemingly alarmed by the large stone cobbles (which replicate the type of substrate found here, and are less likely to be washed downstream) .

The FoL are fond of suggesting that the Planning Authority cannot be impartial as the National Park is also a “partner” in the project. Their assertion cynically relies on oversimplification and ignorance.

The National Park Authority is only a "partner" in the project inasmuch as it is one of the statutory bodies required to be on the project board, and only benefits from the project as it successfully fulfills the Park's statutory purposes "to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area". The NPA is represented on the board by their Chief Exec Alison Barnes.

The NPA's Planning Committee is made up of 14 of the 22 members of the Park Authority. The Committee is mostly local Parish, Town, District and County Councillors (12) and 2 Secretary of State Appointees (through DEFRA). As with any Planning Authority they have strict criteria they must adhere to, and whilst they may seek advice from the civil servant staff of the Authority including their own ecologists and the Chief Exec, the decisions are theirs. No previous scheme has been refused because, like the present one, they are worthwhile restorations to improve the habitat. There is no conflict of interest as the Chief Exec on the board of the project serves the members of the Authority, not the other way around.

Reservations

Does the NFA uncritically support these Wetland Restorations? No. Nor do we unreservedly support all of the Forestry Commission’s plans. For example, we are currently challenging the FC to have a serious rethink of their current version of the proposed Forest Design Plan, and we just successfully campaigned for the FC to tighten their regulation of fungi foraging on the New Forest SSSI.

We continue to campaign for better monitoring both by the Forestry Commission and Natural England which would make the case on paper for this and future restorations much more cut and dried. We may have preferred a more strategic prioritization of restorations (admittedly this could easily have been a tail chasing money burning exercise with little net benefit). We seriously note concerns raised by the New Forest Equestrian Association : road safety and transport of materials, and New Forest History and Archaeology Group : inaccuracies and omissions in the archaeological report, but believe these may be mitigated and rectified, and the Planning Authority and applicants should work with all interested parties to achieve this.

With any new scheme it is accepted that there will be some disruption in the immediate vicinity. Much of the scrub clearance would have been carried out as part of normal open Forest work for Commoning pasture management. This work compliments ancient lawn maintenance and adds to biodiversity. The area will recover quickly and be a better place for wildlife and the stream will meander across the lawn as it did once before. On balance, we have concluded that this project is worthwhile and should be approved.

Conclusions

If you are on the fence about support for this project, we hope that you will avail yourself of information (see further reading below). But, if you’d prefer to ponder this over a pleasant walk, we’d suggest you go and walk the Warwickslade Cutting, near Rhinefield Drive. The restoration on this stretch was completed in 2009. It was proposed and funded under the Final 4000, a project between the Forestry Commission, the National Park Authority, Natural England and the Environment Agency. It was done with the approval of the Verderers and with no opposition from the Commoners Defence Association (keep in mind that this project did not include any subsidy to benefit either). When you walk the stream at Warwickslade, you will be hard pressed to even imagine that work was done there, the only indication of the original straight channel you may glimpse is a gap in the canopy of the trees that were once either side. This is a mere seven years later, but it already looked this good five years ago.

Latchmore Brook, abandoned meander.

You may also want to go walk the Latchmore Brook itself. The original meanders are still very apparent, although the Victorians cut the throat of their source to convert the Brook to a drain. In the photo at the top of this note you’ll see part of the meander to the left of the current course. It’s edged by an area of parched grass to the left that would likely be green improved grazing if the meander were in place and functioning with its floodplain.  Imagine a stream gently flowing through the middle of the picture on the right, consider whether that harms, improves or equals the beauty we have now.

Finally, please consider this: The Victorian Engineers who put in the drainage works did not do Environmental Impact Assessments, they did not use sensitive methods of moving stream beds aside, so that invertebrates and other features of the habitat could be preserved, as done in the restorations we have now. Spoil heaps were left willy-nilly, conditions for erosion and bank instability were created, and the stream was disconnected from its natural flood plain.  Despite the bullishly done works of our forebears, these areas have bounced back. Nature is resilient. We need look further than our own lifetimes, both to the future and the past. If this work does not go forward, it will be a missed opportunity to provide an ecosystem more resilient to change, and to restore landscape and habitat.

Going forward the NFA hope we can all hold the Forestry Commission up to the highest standards for implementation, monitoring and maintenance of this work.

– Brian Tarnoff, Chair, Habitat and Landscape Committee, New Forest Association
(a modified version appeared previously as a note on our Facebook page)

Further Reading:

For more information on the schemes, as well as a good look at all the very successful schemes the FoL neglect to mention:
http://www.hlsnewforest.org.uk/hls/info/50/wetland_restoration

For a smattering of both sides of the argument have a look at the Presentments from the June 2012 Verderers Court: http://www.verderers.org.uk/jun12mins.pdf

For the official NFA Response to the Planning Application from our Planning Committee: http://publicaccess.newforestnpa.gov.uk/online-applications/files/6E1746670EAA39568B650AFD5B85BDF0/pdf/16_00571-MR_G_BAKER__NEW_FOREST_ASSOCIATION__-_NEIGHBOUR_REPRESENTEE-578576.pdf
 
For the supplemental NFA Response to the Planning Application from our Habitat and Landscape Committee: http://publicaccess.newforestnpa.gov.uk/online-applications/files/D1506ED02A3ADDF94479BB09D0A55E3F/pdf/16_00571-MR_B_TARNOFF__CHAIR_HABITAT___LANDSCAPE_COMMITTEE_NEW_FOREST_ASSOCIATION-582830.pdf

For the rest of the BDS response: http://publicaccess.newforestnpa.gov.uk/online-applications/files/3FCA4CD543DBA6FD8C17CBD415C58F63/pdf/16_00571-DR_P_TAYLOR__BRITISH_DRAGONFLY_SOCIETY__-_NEIGHBOUR_REPRESENTEE-577179.pdf

This study from Birmingham and So'ton Uni's used the river catchment upstream of Brockenhurst where previous restorations under the HLS, Final 4000 and LIFE3 programs have been completed over the last decade: "Flooding alleviated by targeted tree planting and river restoration, scientists discover"

The River Restoration Centre used the work at Warwickslade Cutting for their Manual of River Restoration Techniques, although these may not be the same for the Latchmore project, it gives an indication of the great care that is taken in these restorations, and is worth a look http://www.therrc.co.uk/MOT/Final_Versions_%28Secure%29/1.11_Highland_Water.pdf

Warwickslade project for comparison: a mix of 8,000 tonnes of hoggin (dug sand and gravel mix) and 800 tonnes of firm clay by-product, both sourced locally, for 2km stretch, at a cost of £214,500.

Much larger project for Latchmore Brook and the many restorations further up the catchment: 5km of old Brook meanders will be restored, 8km of main channel, tributaries and side drains will have their bed level raised, and 4.6km of main channel, tributaries and side drains will be infilled. Total 13km restored/repaired, 4.6km infilled. Approx 96,000 tonnes Cost Approx £1,500,000. (based on estimates available at time of writing)

Brexit and The Forest

NFA Presentment for the Verderers Court 20th July 2016

However we feel about the Brexit referendum, its aftermath has introduced a vast array of uncertainty, including many elements key to the future of the Forest.

At last Thursday’s National Park Authority meeting, several members stressed the need to express our concerns about keeping the Forest's levels of protection, investment and subsidy to government as soon as possible. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the Environment Secretary will be contacted. The NFA offer our support and input, and hope that the Verderers will join this effort.

There will be much to consider: commoners subsidies past 2020; retention of the important landscape scale habitat designations of the SAC and SPA (Special Areas of Conservation / Special Protection Areas); what we may want from a new British Agricultural Policy, together with reformed Habitats and Birds Directives. New legislation may be necessary to back-stop these protections before the ties to the EU directives might be cut. There's every reason for having the same levels of protection – or better – enshrined directly in United Kingdom law, policy and implementation.

The New Forest Acts and the role of the Verderers remain the bedrock safeguarding the Forest, and our National Park has unique qualities and demands. This must be recognized and respected at the highest levels going forward.

There will be clarifications needed. There is work to be done, and a timely and united forest would help put our vital points across.

Presentment made at the Verderers Court by Brian Tarnoff, Chair, NFA Habitat and Landscape Committee.

Forest Design Plan - next steps

NFA Statement to the National Park Authority Meeting 14th July 2016

[The Forest Design Plan is both the Forestry Commission’s long term vision for the Inclosures, and the Felling License and Restocking Plan for the next ten years. ]

The NFA find much to commend in the “New Forest Inclosures - Forest Design Plan - 2016 Forestry Commission Consultation draft”. On the surface, it seeks to deliver the emphasis on habitat restoration demanded by the Minister’s Mandate, the SAC management plan, the Lawton White Paper, Policy on Ancient Woodland Sites, and this authority’s Biodiversity Action Plan.

Sadly, we find the current draft flawed at the detail level. Good intentions have not been applied in a way that will produce functional habitat. For example, there are nods to habitat defragmentation, but large plantation blocks and fencing remain. Without a thorough ecological review, this draft would likely fail the inspectorate’s habitats regulation hurdles. The NFA offer the Forestry Commission our resources and experienced ecologists to assist; and hope that the National Park will lend the expertise of their relevant officers. We also ask this Authority to join us in urging the Forestry Commission to pause, take stock and accept our help to revise the detail plan. This should be fixed before it is submitted to the next stage.

Campsites and Recreation

Consistent with the SAC Management Plan 2001, the NFA campaigns for the removal or relocation of campsites situated on Ancient and Ornamental Woodland, and other important woodland sites. These are managed to the detriment of both biodiversity and landscape; have less than half the canopy of comparable woodland sites; and just this year Hollands Wood has been subject to an incident of unguided felling by over-enthusiastic contractors and inappropriate investment in new road priorities at its entrance.

The Plan explicitly seeks to fulfil the SAC Management Plan, and states an objective for recreation provision “best placed to balance public enjoyment with protection of habitats and biodiversity”, however it dodges the issue with this caveat, “this Plan does not attempt to pre-suppose or assume any issues or proposals which may arise in due course as part of a wider recreation strategy for the New Forest.”

However, if camping provision in A&O woodlands is to be suitably relocated, existing Inclosures are likely candidates. This plan cannot exist in isolation. It needs this National Park Authority to implement a comprehensive review of recreation infrastructure on the Forest, which is currently arbitrary, outdated, and has no strategic relationship between forest users and the habitats whose condition they may affect.

At this moment, when concerned habitat campaigners, including the New Forest Association, are looking to all levels of government for reassurance that our habitat’s protections, policies and funding will continue at current, or better standards, positive engagement on these issues would be very welcome.

Statement made at the Authority Meeting by Brian Tarnoff, Chair, NFA Habitat and Landscape Committee. The current draft of the plan was open to a public consultation until 4th July 2016. From the SAC Management Plan 2001 Part 3 General Prescriptions, page 30: The following table lists the locations of camp sites in or adjacent to pasture woodlands. A summary of their impact and their contribution to unit condition is given together with a prioritised recommendation for action. Campsites : Denny Wood, Hollands Wood & Longbeech Location : In pasture woodland Impact : Severe reduction in old trees/ dead wood/ lichens & ground flora Condition Assessment : Unfavourable declining Recommendation : Relocate camp site / Restore pasture woodland Priority : High Campsite : Ashurst Location : In pasture woodland Impact : Severe reduction in old trees/ dead wood/ lichens & ground flora Condition Assessment : Unfavourable maintained Recommendation : Redesign infrastructure to maintain existing features & prevent further degradation. Priority : Low

Forest Design Plan

NFA Presentment for the Verderers Court 15th June 2016

[The Forest Design Plan is both the Forestry Commission’s long term vision for the Inclosures, and the Felling License and Restocking Plan for the next ten years. The current draft of the plan is open to a public consultation until 4th July 2016]

“A significant proportion of woodlands in the Inclosures will be modified to restore pasture woodlands, heathlands, valley mires and Ancient and Semi-Natural native woodland where these are appropriate. A consequence of the modification will be that the present overall balance between broadleaves and conifers will be changed in favour of broadleaves. The pace of this modification will depend on markets, availability of resources and a desire to avoid unnecessary premature felling of existing growing trees, the removal of which will be necessary for restoration of habitats. – Plan for the Inclosures, Minister’s Mandate For the Forest 1999-2008 (July 1999)

The NFA find that the proposed Forest Design Plan comes much closer to delivering on this promise than the plan made a decade ago. Additionally it is in keeping with policies and directives including Policy on Ancient Woodland Sites, the SAC management plan, the Lawton White Paper and even an aesthetic nuance demanded by the 1877 New Forest Act.

Last month the court heard an accusation that the plan would reduce the Forest to an artificial park. A monocultural crop of uncertain or decreasing commercial value, little or no habitat value is the very definition of a fake landscape held in aspic. While we can’t ask the Forestry Commission to guarantee the economic future of forestry, a more diverse woodland would be safer for future climate change and biosecurity. The Forest has been a working forest long before the proliferation of blocks of non native conifers, and can be again. Plantation and managed woodland and habitat restoration may co-exist within a naturally structured functional ecosystem.

The NFA welcomes the broad intent of the plan. However, we find the current draft flawed at the detail level, the good intentions have not been applied in a way that will produce the needed functional habitat. Without serious attention to these details, the plan would likely fail the habitats regulation hurdles of the inspectorate. The NFA offer the Forestry Commission our resources and experienced ecologists to assist and will encourage like minded knowledgeable organizations to follow suit. We hope the Verderers may add their collective wisdom of the Forest’s ecology, history and law to our efforts.

Presentment made at the Verderers Court by Brian Tarnoff, Chair, NFA Habitat and Landscape Committee.

Linwood to Lyndhurst Road

HCC’s Disappointing Response to Hit & Run Accidents

Presentment to Verderers Court 18th May 2016, by Richard Deacon (shared here with his kind permission) -- we previously shared his February 10th 2016 Presentment Problems with excessive Traffic and Hit & Run accidents in 2015. For more context see the end of this note.

On behalf of the CDA, my first task is to express our satisfaction and thank those involved for the newly erected signage on the B3078, Roger Penny Way, the Brook to Telegraph Rd. Some two years ago we raised our concerns at proposed signage changes and that the issue should be taken to a higher Authority. Hampshire County Cllr, Mr Edward Heron, and also now on the Verderers bench, duly chaired several meetings and has been instrumental in the most recent installation. The new arrangements catch the eye and hopefully refresh drivers awareness of the risks to our livestock and ponies.

Flushed with this success, I now move to my second task, which is to achieve the same goal on the single lane, but heavily trafficked, Linwood to Lyndhurst road, most particularly in the village of Linwood itself. My family have pursued this goal over more than the last 50 years. My late father successfully campaigned in the 1960s for the erection of two directional chevrons at Amies Corner and the S- bend at Newlands. We were forever helping to pull cars out of the bog on the far side of the latter. Those coming to grief at Amies Corner, more often needed an ambulance than a tractor.

Sadly, in the last two months, at Amies Corner, an unfortunate driver has totaled his Nissan Micra into the tree just 3m from the chevron and the ensuing fire has destroyed both car and tree. Several weeks earlier another driver, failed to negotiate the bend, missed the first tree, careered around the bank on the far side, bounced back-across the road and hit the ancient oak on the other side.

In February, I came to the court, to report 3 Hit & Run accidents involving commoners animals on this road. The number of accidents, within the confines of the village of Linwood, has now risen to 5 in just the one year. The carnage comprises;

• a gelding and a foal each with a broken leg - both destroyed;
• a cow, hospitalised for weeks with injuries;
• two vehicles, written off, one a mini-bus taxi, transporting school children;
• a Mercedes saloon with severe frontal damage.

We trust that the Verderers agree, that on a 15 km stretch of rural road, 5 accidents in one year, all occurring within the 1300m frontage that is Linwood, adequately demonstrates that Linwood has a significant traffic safety problem.

After my earlier presentment this year, HCC have responded to the Official Verderers supporting request, with a desktop study and find that Linwood 'does not meet the criteria for a 30mph speed limit'. HCC allude to the many factors to be taken into account in setting speed limits, and I quote;- 'road character, roadside development, accident history, road safety issues, current traffic speeds, junction frequency, private entrances and the presence of amenities that attract both motorised and non-motorised road users'.

We would point out that in almost 10 years, no formal assessment of traffic speed or frequency has been conducted along this road despite 2 years of the Verderers current speed enforcement initiative. In 10 years, rat run activity and congestion on the A31 has seen traffic levels soar on the Linwood Rd. Excessive speed and erratic driving behaviour are increasingly prevalent.

Linwood now has 47 homes, 2 public houses, 2 busy FC carparks (Appleslade and Broomy Walk). 11 properties open directly onto the Linwood Rd and a further 4 dwellings are served by short gravel tracks. The remainder of Linwood residents gain access via the junctions at the two ends of Toms Lane.

For 8 months of the year, the village populace is supplemented by the Red Shoot Camping Park with 110 pitches and Deers Leap Caravan Park with 34 units, each directly served by an unpaved vehicular access. In 2015, the camping park alone hosted 8687 child nights, i.e. an average of 35 children per night. These children, either with or without adult supervision, mostly access the Forest via the Toms Lane/Linwood Rd. junction where visibility is poor for drivers.

The Red Shoot Inn, meets the needs of both its own patrons and the camping park with many young children playing on the green areas immediately adjacent to the unfenced Linwood Road. At 40mph, this is a fatal accident waiting to happen.

As to amenity, the immediate area and the carparks are heavily frequented by unfamiliar holiday dogwalkers, particularly in the early morning and at dusk. Two of the National Park designated cycle tracks use all of the 1300m of the Linwood Road. Family cycle activity, training runs, and organised cycle events use the same section of road.

We do not consider that HCC's desktop study has really paid any attention to these contributing factors and we request HCC to carry out a genuine appraisal of our traffic problems, so as to secure a safe passage of traffic. To this end, I would be happy to provide a safe housing and power supply for a sustained SID survey in the vicinity of Linwood's roadside telephone box. This survey will provide accurate current data of traffic speed and frequency for a definitive assessment

Drivers need to be advised that they are entering a village community with an exceptional range of hazards. No such signage is provided at present.

Having read the minutes of the Verderers post-Court meeting of February, I must express my dismay at the Court's dismissal of any form of definition of the Linwood village boundaries. I am at a loss to find any other village within the Forest, with such a substantial make-up of homes and businesses and Forest visitor carparks, as listed above, that is not permitted to display its village name. Many much smaller villages within the Forest are clearly signposted, often with accompanying request to 'drive with care' and the benefit of a 30mph speed restriction. We can depend upon it, that if all 47 homes and 2 pubs should decline to pay their NFDC rates, the village of Linwood would not remain a non-entity for very long!

Further, after 8 years of my trying to restore suitable signage on the Linwood Road, warning of the likely presence of commoners' 'Animals on the Road, Day and Night', it beggars belief, that an unfamiliar motorist can still leave the A31 at Ringwood and traverse the entire New Forest from Rockford to Ashurst, via Lyndhurst, without ever seeing this or any other information sign warning of the presence and risk to depastured livestock.

8 of the 47 homes in Linwood house families that actively depasture animals, 5 are young commoners. We must again ask the Verderers to seek remedy of this signage deficiency.

To Sum up, this presentment is a wake up call for a proper traffic risk assessment for the village of Linwood.

Richard Deacon, Linwood resident and a practising commoner, retired civil engineer with considerable experience of highway and environmental engineering. Shared with permission to this NFA page. This follows up his February 10th 2016 Presentment Problems with excessive Traffic and Hit & Run accidents in 2015.

The Official Verderer, Dominic May, took up these issues with Hampshire County Council and made the following Announcements at the March and April 2016 Verderers Courts:

16th March 2016 2016/8524 ROAD THROUGH LINWOOD 'Thank you to Richard Deacon for making his presentment about speeding though Linwood. The Verderers support you in your desire to slow down the traffic, and also your wish to remove much of the traffic by discouraging the use of this road as a rat run to avoid the A31. I therefore wrote in mid-February to Hampshire County Council to request that the speed limit through Linwood Village be reduced from 40mph to 30mph as it is in most other New Forest Villages. In my letter, I have also chased up for Hampshire County Council's long-awaited proposal to make the road across Broomy Plain a single track with passing places. If a single track road with passing places were implemented here, traffic would be slowed by the inconvenience, and use as an A31 bypass would diminish considerably. And I have requested that Hampshire County Council erects a sign the entrance to the open Forest at Moyles Court. I have not yet received a reply from Hampshire County Council, and when I do, I will update the Court further. Meanwhile, we have requested that Hampshire Constabulary consider the area as a site for our Verderers-funded Speed Camera Van.' 20th April 2016 2016/8582 ROAD THROUGH LINWOOD 'I have received a disappointing reply from Hampshire County Council regarding the excess traffic through Linwood. It is a classic local government one-and-a-half pages to tell me that the Council will do nothing to reduce the speed limit through Linwood. And also that the proposal to protect the road verges across Broomy Plain, and install passing places, has been rejected by something called the Operation Resilience team, without any reference to, or consultation with, the Verderers. The ongoing damage to the Broomy Plain verges, which are SSSI, is a matter of continuing concern, and I will write back to suggest to Hampshire County Council that it cannot ignore its responsibilities under national legislation.'

The NFA support initiatives to reduce animal accidents and make the roads of the Forest safe. In developing our own Road Safety campaign we will be fully supporting the efforts of the Verderers, and concerned residents such as Mr. Deacon. We are very disappointed with HCC’s response; and its own stated criteria “road character”, “accident history”, “road safety issues”, and “the presence of amenities” make this area an obvious candidate for slower speeds and road safety measures.

Hit and Run Accident Prosecutions

Now that the foals are starting to appear on the open forest, with more due to drop throughout May, we felt we should publicise the now available announcements from the Official Verderer at the March 2016 Court.

ANNOUNCEMENTS & DECISIONS BY THE OFFICIAL VERDERER

2016/8523 HIT AND RUN ACCIDENTS - PROSECUTION FOR ANIMAL CRUELTY

The Court is appalled by the increase in Hit and Run drivers after hitting a legally grazing animal. May I remind everyone that the stock is grazing the New Forest by right, and you are driving the roads by privilege.

If a Hit & Run driver is identified, the Verderers will push for the police to prosecute for animal cruelty, possibly leading to a jail sentence. I would like to remind the Court of a past prosecution whereby a driver from Hyde was convicted in Southampton Magistrates Court of failing to stop and report an accident and causing unnecessary suffering under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. On the charge of 'causing unnecessary suffering to an animal' he was sentenced 28 days detention.

The Court will urge the relevant authorities to prosecute for cruelty wherever such a case arises. The rules on simply reporting a motor accident are quite separate from those governing cruelty. It may be sufficient to report damage to a garden fence within 24 hours. Cruelty results from leaving an animal suffering for any length of time that can be avoided. The police should always be telephoned within minutes. If you have no mobile phone signal, knock on the nearest house and ask to use the landline!'

Here’s the Verderers response to Richard Deacon’s excellent presentment from February, which, with his kind permission we were able to share previously.

2016/8524 ROAD THROUGH LINWOOD

'Thank you’ to Richard Deacon for making his presentment about speeding though Linwood. The Verderers support you in your desire to slow down the traffic, and also your wish to remove much of the traffic by discouraging the use of this road as a rat run to avoid the A31. I therefore wrote in mid-February to Hampshire County Council to request that the speed limit through Linwood Village be reduced from 40mph to 30mph as it is in most other New Forest Villages.

In my letter, I have also chased up for Hampshire County Council's long-awaited proposal to make the road across Broomy Plain a single track with passing places. If a single track road with passing places were implemented here, traffic would be slowed by the inconvenience, and use as an A31 bypass would diminish considerably.

And I have requested that Hampshire County Council erects a sign the entrance to the open Forest at Moyles Court.

I have not yet received a reply from Hampshire County Council, and when I do, I will update the Court further.

Meanwhile, we have requested that Hampshire Constabulary consider the area as a site for our Verderers-funded Speed Camera Van.'

We'd further note that at the April Verderers court, the Official Verderer was displeased by Hampshire County Council's inadequate response to this issue. Details as they become available... (Court proceedings are currently only published after minutes of both the private in camera meetings of the Verderers and the sitting of the open court have been approved at the following month's session).