Proposed Cycle Network Extension – Presentment Made to the November 2024 Meeting of the Verderers Court

Official Verderer and Verderers and the members of public attending court today, I am Sarah Nield, Chair of the New Forest Association, also known as the Friends of the New Forest. I am giving this presentment on behalf of the association as a further response to the Deputy Surveyor’s Presentment to the September Court.

The forest and commoning face many challenges one of which is intense recreational pressure which is forecast only to grow over coming years. Thus, any proposal which adds to recreational pressure demands the Court’s careful scrutiny in the light of reliable and robust evidence. Yet this evidence is presently lacking. We pointed out several omissions in our presentment to the October Court. Given our further work, I wish to look further at three of the more serious omissions.

Habitat Assessments

Foremost are the Habitat Impact Assessments required by the Habitat Regulations 2017 to ensure that the forest as a protected site will not be adversely affected. Assessments are required for each of the proposed routes and the cycle network as a whole but the Deputy Surveyor has only promised these assessments. This is unacceptable. The Habitat Regulations make clear that the court must be able to consider these assessments before coming to an informed decision. [1]  Conditional approval or approval in principle is not an option

[1] Habitat Regulations 2017 para 63. See also Government Guidance at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/duty-to-protect-conserve-and-restore-european-sites and Stephen Troman’s legal advice  supporting the OEP’s Report on Environmental Protection Regimes available at https://www.theoep.org.uk/report/environmental-assessments-are-not-effective-they-should-be-due-practical-barriers.  

Upgrading Work

Our inspection of various routes suggests that quite extensive upgrading work will be required -in some cases stretching several hundred meters. For example, the proposed track to the east of Knightwood Oak passes initially through wet and boggy ground and would only be feasible with considerable upgrading work. Clearly certain upgrading work could adversely affect grazing, as well as fragile habitats. Entomologists tell me that even sandy tracks may be vital to the survival of some endangered species. So how can the court make an informed decision and fulfil their statutory responsibilities under the New Forest Acts without full details? Indeed, consent be required under the Commons Act 2006?

Recreation Management

The Recreation Management Strategy does call for a coherent cycling network[2] but only in the wider context of recreation focussed on “gateway” sites and away from the tranquil, nature rich but fragile areas of the forest.[3] The Sandford Principle dictates that Recreation must not jeopardise conserving the wildlife of the National Park 

We have asked FE for the rationale behind each of the proposed extensions but are still waiting. Thus, we have had to speculate. I only have time to highlight two of the more worrying examples. We are happy to share our fuller insights including those routes which we do not think present significant issues – mainly already gravelled tracks within inclosures.

The Ogdens, Ashley Walk, Cadman’s Pool, Fritham network has raised significant objections already with which we fully agree particularly when there is existing access provided by Hampton Ridge. The distance of this area from “gateway” sites has contributed to its tranquillity designation but bicycles with their longer range bring a high risk of environmental disturbance.    The proposed tracks from Matley towards Deerleap and Ashurst are also over unmade tracks in sensitive areas and the track across Parc Pale is over a site of archaeological significance despite a relatively quiet road nearby

[2] Para [6.2].
[3] Paras [4.1 & 4.2] supported by expert research by Footprint Ecology see https://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/conservation/managing-recreation/managing-recreation/research-into-recreational-use-of-the-new-forests-protected-habitats-footprint-ecology-2020/.

Summary

I reiterate the NFA supports a coherent cycle network and its role in sustainable transport – many of our members are keen cyclists and we recognise the popularity and benefits of cycling. However, any network extension must NOT jeopardise the forest we care so passionately about. We all seem to want our piece of this special place, and we have heard moving pleas both supporting and questioning this proposal, but the bottom line is that we must ensure that the forest and its unique treasures are not further jeopardised by our own activities whatever they may be. The forest is one of the most biodiverse areas – it is not a playground.

We thus urge the court to postpone any decision until they can consider these proposals in the light of:

• full Habitat Impact Assessments;
• details of any upgrading works;

AND reject routes that risk intensifying recreational pressure on the most tranquil and sensitive areas of the forest.

RETURN to REPORT ON NOVEMBER VERDERERS COURT