Tag Archives | NFA

Rewilding The New Forest?

By johnward on 25/02/2019 in News

The growl of a large grizzly bear filled the hall at Lyndhurst Community Centre and the audience of two hundred people gasped. As curtains drew back and they were confronted with a huge picture of the bear, they listened attentively to Sir Charles Burrell’s description of his pioneering rewilding project at his family estate, Knepp, in West Sussex. At the event organised by the Friends of the New Forest, Sir Charles explained that rewilding is not currently about bringing back such major predators as we don’t have the right eco-systems. He showed how Britain has only tiny pockets of true ‘nature’, and we need to care for these but also need more, bigger, better and more joined-up areas if we are to have a real impact on nature conservation.

Sir Charles went on to describe how over a period of six years, the Knepp estate moved away from traditional arable and pastoral farming on what he said was very poor quality Wealden Clay land, whose production capacity was falling short of national averages. He divided the estate into three main areas, which were treated differently. In the southern block, formerly mainly arable land, field hedges were removed, and the land was stocked with Tamworth pigs, Old English Longhorn cattle and Exmoor ponies, while three species of deer soon made themselves at home. Scrub developed quickly, though each former field responded differently.

The middle block where the old Knepp Castle had been was believed to be a cultural landscape, a park with a large hammer pond designed by Repton. It was re-seeded with grass and wildflowers, which deterred an exuberant explosion of scrub. The resulting grassland is stocked with ponies, cattle and deer but no pigs.

The northern block had been farmed for dairy cattle, and was re-seeded with grasses but no wildflowers, and is now stocked just with cattle. The resulting open farmscape is slowly developing a little scrub. Sir Charles explained how he had been criticised for creating scrubland, and pointed out that pollen data from 6,000 years ago reveals that only one third of Britain was covered by woodland, contrary to the popular myth that a squirrel could once pass from tree to tree without touching the ground from Lands End to John O’Groats.

The Knepp project is steered by an advisory board of international experts from many relevant fields,. In order to have a more convenient term for a ‘long-term, minimum intervention, natural process-led area’, which although accurate would hardly inspire anyone, ‘rewilding’ was adopted. This team looked at the UK’s extinct animals and selected proxies which would be appropriate, for example, cattle to replace aurochs. Sir Charles enthusiastically described how the animals seem to complement each other, and the new habitats have drawn in huge numbers and varieties of insects, birds and animals as well as plants, many more than when the estate was farmed traditionally. The estate employs a full-time ecologist to survey, monitor and record these. They have also found that their soil biodiversity and function have improved significantly.

Perhaps surprisingly Sir Charles then demonstrated how the changes have also benefitted the estate financially. Even excluding the tourism, camping and glamping activities which he has developed, the income from the farming side of the estate now well exceeds the national average by some 30%.

Sir Charles was then joined on the platform by Debbie Tann, Chief Executive of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, and Diana Westerhoff, a Verderer, to answer questions from the floor. Debbie Tann said that she has visited Knepp and been most impressed by what the estate is doing. She said that wildlife in Britain is disappearing at an alarming rate and we need imagination and new bold thinking to put nature into recovery. She reported that the Trust is looking for opportunities in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight to create larger scale reserves and one or two ‘Knepps’.

Diana Westerhoff commented that while the New Forest is very different to Knepp, there have been some efforts at rewilding. The Forest Design Plan is resulting in restoration to traditional land use in some areas, while the wetland restoration programme is returning lost habitats to a favourable condition.

Oliver Crosthwaite Eyre, President of the Friends of the New Forest, noted that one of the six reasons for rewilding listed on the Knepp website was the revitalisation of communities, and wondered how this could be achieved where farms are smaller. To this question, Sir Charles responded with news of an upland farmer he had met at the Oxford farming conference. By changing his pattern of sheep farming including actually reducing stock numbers, and diversifying into holiday lets, he had managed to make his business much more sustainable.

In reply to a question about the impact of global warming on wildlife habitats, Debbie Tann agreed that there is some impact on habitats but possibly more on the food needed by wildlife. She gave the examples of a crash in insect numbers and changes in timing of bird migration having severe effects. Diana Westerhoff added an example of the falcon species, the hobby, declining in the Forest because of a decline in the numbers of house martins, a favoured food of their young. And Sir Charles gave his own example of cuckoos, which have returned to Knepp in good numbers. However they feed with swifts in sub-Saharan Africa, and if it doesn’t rain there for five weeks and there are no insects, they never arrive in Britain.

Another audience member proposed that people are increasingly intolerant of wild landscapes and incapable of being sensible round large herbivores, and wondered if rewilding as a concept would help. Maybe because visitors to Knepp understand they are visiting a ‘rewilded’ landscape, they are more respectful of the large grazing herbivores than visitors to the New Forest are with the free-roaming livestock. Sir Charles recalled a neighbouring farmer who runs educational visits finding that even young farmers could not name common trees, and he suggested that we need more nature education as part of the curriculum. Debbie Tann suggested that we need to rewild people and regretted that many children have never known the fun of running around in long grass.

Questioned about the complexities of environmental stewardship schemes, Sir Charles noted that the Rural Payments Agency uses Google satellite images to categorise landscape, resulting in confused and contradictory definitions which need to be sorted out soon. Diana Westerhoff reported that the Higher Level Stewardship scheme includes more or less all grazed land but the Rural Payments Agency excludes gorse as non-grazing land even though ponies happily eat it in winter.

Comparing the New Forest to Knepp, the next questioner noted that while Knepp has withdrawn from management, in the New Forest we manage both land and stock much more. Diana Westerhoff pointed out that the Forest starts from a very different position, resulting from biodiversity developed over thousands of years. It would be good to have other Knepps around the Forest but we could lose from emulating it in the Forest itself. Debbie Tann added that only 55% of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the Forest are classified as in a ‘favourable’ condition, little better than compared with 45% across the whole of Hampshire, and some extra wilding activity might be helpful to improve this. Sir Charles picked up the point of rewilding people and felt that this arises from inspirational things in the landscape – think beyond the box. What about bison?

Focusing on the Forest, it was suggested that the grazed areas of the forest do not enjoy the abundance of wildlife described at Knepp and the questioner asked what impact animal density has on this. Sir Charles felt that it was not necessary to worry about it. This is just a moment in time, and livestock numbers wax and wane over long periods. Diana Westerhoff endorsed this and added that even short-grazed turf may be home to species missing from other habitats. The woodlands are rich in insects like moths and in bats but we just don’t often see them.

Sir Charles was asked to explain the term ‘pop-up Knepps’ mentioned in his talk. He pointed out that farms and estates pass down the generations and landowners may not wish to tie the land forever to specific conservation designations like SSSIs. So a commitment to plan for 10 or 20 years would enable people to choose to return to conventional farming in the future. The Knepp estate has footpaths crossing it and Sir Charles was asked how he manages the public. He stated that longhorn cattle were useful in deterring people from straying from paths, but that dog-walkers were a problem for ground-nesting birds. He suggested that good paths, routes, maps and signs were all needed.

Thinking again of the Forest, two questions raised the effect of grazing levels on the possible decline in wildlife and growth of new trees, issues welcomed by the audience with applause. Diana Westerhoff noted that studies on the impact of grazing on ground-nesting birds showed that it was hard to separate it from other factors like deer numbers, dog-walking, predators and climate change. But she commented that it was hard to control over-grazing. Tree regeneration is a long-term business and the Forest includes pasture woodland rather than dense canopy woodland.

At this point John Ward, Chairman of the Friends of the New Forest, said that he did not feel comfortable at being told we don’t have enough information so cannot take action, and asked the panel whether, nonetheless, it might be possible to divide the Forest into areas and exclude recreational access to part of it in order to test rewilding. Sir Charles responded positively, saying that the Forest is large enough to do this. Joking, he even suggested bringing back wolves to control the deer! But he felt that it was possible to amend stock intensity and deer density. He also pointed out the value of thorn bushes which protect young trees, quoting an ancient forestry saying: ‘the thorn is the mother of the oak’. An audience member added that a 400-year old oak only needs one seedling produced during its lifetime to replace itself.

The next question raised the issue of recreational pressure. Debbie Tann agreed that for the New Forest this is the greatest current problem. The words ‘National Park’ mislead the public, and some rewilding might make the nature and purpose of the Forest clearer. We need to be braver, for example in challenging plans for housing development, and local authorities should be providing alternative green space for recreation outside the Forest.

Finally Peter Roberts, previous Chairman of the Friends of the New Forest, enquired what would be the smallest area which could engage in rewilding, with the large estates around the Forest and the Forestry Commission in mind. Sir Charles gave examples of the area which a pig needs per week, because scale matters. The smaller the area, the more management you have to do. The bigger you get, the more you can sit back and leave it alone.

At the end of a stimulating and wide-ranging discussion, Oliver Crosthwaite Eyre thanked Sir Charles for his talk and admired his courage in rewilding Knepp, also thanking Debbie Tann and Diana Westerhoff for their contribution and finally urging the audience to join the Friends of the New Forest to support its fight for the Forest’s sustainable future.

Presentment: Our Objections to Local Plans

By Brian Tarnoff on 17/10/2018 in Habitat, News, Planning

New Forest District Council’s Local Plan aims to build 10,500 homes over ten years. In their own summary they admit this is 3 to 4 times their current development rate. 13 of 20 of their proposed strategic development sites are on Green Belt.

This will increase the population in the district and park by roughly 7 times that of Lyndhurst. One of these “Lyndhurst”s will be an entire new village at Fawley, which will increase the population of the park by 10 %, at the wrong end of the already stressed A326 transport corridor. This would have a severe recreational impact on the Forest with disturbance to habitat and livestock, and would further urbanize the already saturated Waterside Area, requiring upgrades to the roads that due to that saturation would necessarily encroach onto the highly protected Crown Lands within the National Park, and would increase traffic westward across the Park on roads already animal accident blackspots.

The New Forest National Park Authority and NFDC share a viability study that accepts the developer’s contention that in order to develop 1500 homes at Fawley, they must build 120 as premium homes on a Site of Importance to Nature Conservation in the National Park. Adjacent to the Power Station site, Tom Tiddler’s Ground is a young coastal grazing marsh that could easily qualify for SSSI status if it were grazed by commoners livestock[1]. [see addendum below for alternatives offered]

The National Park is failing its statutory purposes to conserve and enhance by adopting the poor logic and questionable feasibility behind the NFDC support for the Waterside development, and lack of objection to the scale of NFDC’s 10,500 home plan. The Park Authority and District Council should be working together to fulfil their legal obligation to protect the Forest, not to undermine that protection for the sake of NFDC’s political objectives.

The Friends of the New Forest / NFA are objecting to the NFNPA Local Plan under examination in November, before your next court, because if accepted as it is, it lays the groundwork for NFDC’s Local Plan which presumes the need and scale of the NFDC objectives, including the destruction of Tom Tiddler’s Ground.

The Government 25 Year Environment Plan promises greater protection for National Parks and both designated and undesignated habitats, and a review for possible expansion of the boundaries of National Parks. The Park’s own policy should only allow major development under exceptional circumstances. 10,500 homes in the ostensible buffer around the Park, the intentional destruction of Important habitat, and the decimation of Green Belt flies in the face of any presumption that the National Park provides the Forest with any protection.

We ask the Verderers, in their role as a statutory consultee to support our objections, particularly when the NFDC Local Plan is considered. This is a generational threat to the Forest, and hope that all present in both official and private capacities will join us in this fight.

[1] Indeed previous attempts to do just that failed only due to unreasonable demands from the Power Station management.

ADDENDUM:
The current proposals range from 1500 homes on both the site and onto the SP25 land, or 4000 homes on the site alone (that profitability in the viability study equates 120 homes on the Park’s area with 2500 homes difference, is an example of the nonsense that the viability study purports, and a veiled threat to make an even more unacceptable development). Even within the Power Station site, the proposals are not limited as they should be to just the former industrial area. There is also an entirely cracked logic that if these homes must be built to fund the Power Station site development, that they must be built there, and not anywhere else in the country, and they must be built first, but with no guarantee that the industrial site would be developed subsequently.

The current proposals for the Power Station site, which do not demonstrate exceptional circumstances required for major development within the Park, should either be abandoned, scaled down to minor settlement, or mixed use for recreation or perhaps most fittingly for its industrial heritage sustainable power generation in the form of a solar array, all of which should be confined wholly to the industrial area alone, and outside the 400m zone of any future and very likely SPA designation.

Recreation Management: What We Should Keep and Add

By Brian Tarnoff on 11/08/2018 in Habitat, News

The 2018 RMS Survey Proposals drop important Actions from the Current Recreation Management Strategy 2010-2030. We discuss what we’d want kept, and propose other useful key projects.

Actions to Retain from Current RMS 2010-2030

All the partner organizations were part of the extensive consultation that produced the existing strategy, which they would have had substantial say in and adoption. The objectives of the existing Strategy are “owned” by definition by the National Park which includes that Strategy as one of its core documents. Whilst it’s true that the Park Authority has limited direct responsibilities and powers, it’s incumbent on them to use their influence on those organizations that do, and there is a legal obligation for those bodies to listen and act accordingly.

One of the reasons that we find that the new proposals are not a substantial improvement over the existing RMS is that it leaves out specified actions which we continue to support. In some instances there are references to these in the survey, but passing or implied inclusion of these actions is insufficient as they should be explicitly included. Here is a non-exhaustive list of actions which should be considered for stated inclusion, with some suggestion for amendment or extension into new projects.

Develop a National Park Ranger Service

5.3 Raising awareness and understanding
5.3.3 Work with the recreation user groups and land managers, to promote responsible behaviour amongst all users that respects the special qualities of the National Park and the needs of others through a range of mechanisms, and especially by:
A.. Face to face contact with co-ordinated ranger services, providing a friendly and knowledgeable presence able to convey consistent messages
5.3.5 Develop a National Park Ranger Service which is responsive to the needs of the Forest as they emerge, and facilitate the co-ordination of existing ranger services within the National Park. Consider establishing a Young Friends of the New Forest Group to involve and engage young people more in the area.

5.3.3 Referenced absent Ranger Service aspiration 1.1 and 2.1
5.3.5 Passing mention 2.4 on the ground “mitigation rangers” and 5.2 funding

Credible enforcement of any rules developed, or even the existing byelaws, would require an investment in personnel. We would want to see this ambassadorial role extended to include some elements of enforcement.

We cannot necessarily expect either FC Keepers or Rangers, or NPA Rangers to fulfil the role of enforcement. It may be that a new role modelled after the Foreign style “Park Ranger”, that is with some police training and enforcement powers should be considered. There needs to be enough of a perceived enforcement presence, whether directly from beats of such rangers, or the extended eyes and ears of the combined other Rangers/Keepers/Agisters network for Park users to sense that they could be seen or challenged for inappropriate or illegal behaviour. We recognize that this would require funding, but providing this service would shore up any funding plans that require charging which itself would need enforcement to be effective.

Influencing beyond the boundaries of the National Park

5.9 Influencing recreational provision beyond the boundaries of the National Park
5.9.1 Outside the National Park, work in partnership with other Authorities to improve recreational provision that provides for their community needs (thereby helping to relieve pressure on the New Forest Special Area of Conservation). Ensure that recreation provision is at the forefront of planning for major urban expansion within a 20km radius beyond the boundary of the New Forest.
5.9.2 In partnership with neighbouring authorities, actively support their search to identify and implement opportunities for new Country Parks or similar and advocate the inclusion of these aspirations in the local development frameworks and core strategies of neighbouring authorities.

5.9.1 is not indicated in any way by the new proposals. In light of NFDC’s current draft local plan targeting 10,500 houses over 10 years, the commensurate surge in local population using the Forest, and NFDC’s low quality standards for Suitable Alternate Natural Greenspace (proposal to use degraded arable rather than setting a standard to offer land restored to a quality commensurate with the protected habitats for which it is meant to mitigate), this is clearly an important action.

5.9.2 could be construed to have a passing mention as an ambition Objective 4’s statement and glancing mention in Objective 5 Funding, but it is not featured amongst the Actions. Given that infrastructure needs may demand the wholesale destruction of the nearby habitat of Dibden Bay along with greater stress on local transport infrastructure, perhaps it would be reasonable to suggest that the National interest would demand a substantial mitigation which perhaps could include compulsory purchase of sufficient well placed land to fulfil the ambitions for Country Parks that would offset damage and act as preferred recreation sites.

Below we have proposed new projects to extend influence to neighbouring authorities: “Habitat Mitigation Framework for the Forest that is Fit for Purpose” and a “Strategic Regional Development Forum.”

Camping and Parking Infrastructure

5.6 Providing sustainable services and facilities
5.6.1 Undertake a review of recreational and visitor facilities in the National Park.
5.6.3 Manage car parking in the National Park as a means of providing access for people to the New Forest and managing impacts on the most sensitive areas. Overall car parking capacity across the National Park is not anticipated to increase or decrease significantly from existing levels:
A.. Audit car parking provision within the National Park6.4 Camping and caravanning
6.4.1 Audit the provision of camping in the National Park and maintain the unique experience the New Forest offers; sustain the significant contribution it makes to the local economy whilst ensuring that campsite management does not adversely damage the Park’s special qualities.
6.4.2 Work with partners to identify potential alternative sites to which the phased relocation of the more damaging campsites (e.g. Hollands Wood, Longbeech and Denny Wood) might be achieved whilst providing a similar quality of camping experience. It must be recognised the difficulties in finding alternative sites; many issues will have to be taken into consideration, including the local economy, transport links, access to facilities (e.g. villages, shops) and the camping experience.
6.4.3 Work with campsite operators to reduce the environmental footprint and impact of camping and caravanning on sensitive areas to enhance landscape and visitor satisfaction by:
.. preventing the extension of existing and development of new camping and caravan sites
.. restricting the spread of new supporting built facilities
.. ensuring that any built facilities that are provided reflect their surroundings
.. securing more sympathetic conservation management of existing camp sites
.. monitoring the condition and operation of the sites on designated areas.6.4.4 Explore opportunities to develop campsites as substitutes to those displaced from the commonable lands as a valuable form of farm and business diversification in robust locations.
6.4.5 Provide further guidance on the future management of campsites to reduce the dependency on car use, for example, by encouraging campers to leave their cars on site whilst visiting the National Park and continuing to promote alternatives to the private car for travel around the Forest.

5.6.1, 5.6.3 and 6.4.1 Audit of parking and camping provisions and facilities – a very straightforward achievable bit of work, unfortunately not yet done eight years later.

Below we have proposed new projects to address campsite issues: “Bring temporary campsites under a regimen of consistent standards and controls” and “Close Hollands Wood, Denny Wood and Longbeech Campsites”. Both of these would augment the goal in Policy DP18 “enable the removal of pitches from sensitive areas by the relocation of part of a site to a less sensitive area”.

New Forest National Park Core Strategy Policy DP18: Extensions to Holiday Parks and Camp Sites
Extensions to existing holiday parks, touring caravan or camping sites will only be permitted to enable the removal of pitches from sensitive areas by the relocation of part of a site to a less sensitive area adjoining an existing site, providing:

a) there would be overall environmental benefits
b) there would be no increase in the overall site area or site capacity
c) the area where pitches or other facilities are removed from would be fully restored to an appropriate New Forest landscape, and any existing use rights are relinquished.

To be supplanted by almost identical Submission Draft Local Plan 2016-2036 Policy DP47: Holiday Parks and Camp Sites removes the restrictive stipulation “adjoining an existing site”

Possible RMS Projects

This is a non-exhaustive list of possible projects that would be welcome ways of delivering the aspirations which should have been more explicitly spelled out in the survey document.

Research Station for the Forest

This would pool resources to staff and deliver a focus for New Forest research. It would maintain a catalogue/concordance of extant research, coordinate research efforts from academic institutions, quality check citizen science, and encourage research to provide evidentiary base for spatial strategy, recreation and livestock impacts on habitat, climate change or any other key criteria for future decision making.

Habitat Mitigation Framework for the Forest that is Fit for Purpose

Mitigation regimes use formula developed by Natural England for Thames Basin Heaths, which does not scale appropriately to the Forest because a) the Forest is much richer in features and biodiversity at threat and should cost developers more b) the morphology of the Forest is different: Thames Basin Heaths spatially has greater opportunity for alternative spaces, where the Forest, surrounded, creates more of a siege situation (with only one defence to the West at Moors Valley, and plans to the East eternally pipe dreamed).

Strategic regional development Forum

In the past some planning regimes managed on a more regional basis was able to reduce pressure in and around the Forest. Both the promises of the government’s 25 Year Environment Plan and its subsequent upcoming review of National Parks should be an opportunity to put the case again. Recreation pressure on the Forest is directly affected by population proximity, housing targets within and on the borders of the Park. If the park and its borders cannot be afforded a sufficient buffer zone that retains its own green belt with sufficient alternative natural greenspace, then the government’s promise of increased protection to our parks and habitats is hollow. The Draft Action proposals have relegated engagement with other authorities to mitigation (which as already noted is undercooked), housing targets with direct impact on Forest recreation are relevant under Section 62 Duties.

Bring temporary campsites under a regimen of consistent standards and controls

Both these camping projects (see below) could help address the obligation under the 2001 SAC Management plan to relocate three FC Campsites (Five year priority 6.4.2 of RMS 2010). Temporary campsite provision in and around the Forest should provide a consistent minimal standard and be subject to appropriate licensing. This could lead to a Charter, or even a scheme similar to “New Forest Marque” for campsites to assure visitors of a Park led standard of quality, and perhaps, oversight. It may also be appropriate to encourage some small pop-up sites as alternative temporary use of backup land during the peak tourist summer season, which could serve as an additional income for commoning.

Close Hollands Wood, Denny Wood and Longbeech Campsites.

The Natural England’s SAC Management Plan for the New Forest 2001 (page 30, Part 3: General Prescriptions) gave “Unfavourable Declining” condition assessments to Hollands Wood, Denny Wood and Longbeech due to the presence and management of the campsites. The Campsite Survey (New Forest Camp site Baseline Survey: Final Report (Cox, Jonathan: July 2010: Lyndhurst: New Forest Association)) showed these have less than half the canopy they ought. This Authority’s Landscape Action Plan doesn’t even have the word campsite in it, let alone a consideration of their impact. The NPA need to address this remiss approach.

Recreation Management: Evaluated Actions

By Brian Tarnoff on 11/08/2018 in Habitat, News

Detailed Response To the Draft Actions

The 2018 survey proposals consider 25 “Actions” spread over 7 “Objectives”.

For the most part these are bland statements of guiding principles, but offer few concrete strategic steps to manage recreation. It is difficult to formulate a response to such an underwhelming document. On their face, it is difficult to quibble with the stated actions they vary from statements of the obvious (apply enforcement to illegal recreation activities) to standard operational concerns (find funding and consider charging the beneficiaries of recreation), but there is almost no substance (much talk of developing mechanisms and techniques with no useful specificity). Much of it is not well written, eschews plain English, and may be left to so much interpretation that opposing views may inaccurately be imposed on its meaning. It may seem pedantic or churlish to point out these flaws in the presence of obvious good intention, but this is meant to form a core policy document of a National Park Authority, it should include clearly stated proposals.

The main problem is not the writing, or the bland proposals, but what has been left out, either dropped from the previous RMS Strategy, lost through omission by vagueness, or simply not considered. These include Management actions meant to fulfil the obligations of the SAC Management Plan. What follows here is an in depth critique including the full text of the proposed Objectives/Actions for reference, we have detailed omitted or alternative actions, and our summary remarks and conclusions are available separately.

By and large, the stated Objectives are relatively sound, having antecedents in the existing 2010 Strategy. The descriptions of each are at the heart of the good intentions of this revised Strategy, yet they’re not even up for discussion, only the proposed “Actions” are offered up for evaluation. There has been a truly odd decision in the presentation of these core descriptions in the online survey, by default they are hidden, requiring respondents to manually “unhide” each. Additionally a Draft Criteria for Judging Recreation Facilities has been published to the Managing Recreation web page but no comment is sought for this in the survey.

Raising awareness and understanding –
ensuring recreation is sustainable, wherever it takes placeObjective 1: Convey the things that make the New Forest special to both visitors and local people in more consistent and effective ways, so that they understand the importance of making responsible recreation choices.This objective acknowledges that the level of awareness of the New Forest’s special qualities, and their sensitivity, is currently insufficient. People who enjoy and come to understand the New Forest are much more likely to value and want to protect it, so it is important to work together in a range of ways to create a greater sense of ownership, respect and responsibility that ensures the Forest will retain its unique features into the future. The work needs to be tailored to resonate with the varying motivations, values and interests of different audiences.

We fully support education initiatives. These objectives and actions are important and in many ways already in hand. We believe a change of emphasis from “the special qualities of a National Park” to “delicate habitats of a National Nature Reserve, working farm and forest” would highlight the need to protect, especially for those for whom “Park” is an urban greenspace for play.

Draft action	Examples of possible delivery
1.1. Improve the quality and availability of information and interpretation about the special qualities of New Forest.	Websites, social media, printed materials, exhibitions, film and face-to-face communication
1.2.Encourage organisations involved in tourism to inspire respect for the special qualities of the National Park by regularly including agreed key messages in their communications.	Through Go New Forest, visitor attractions, publishers and accommodation providers
1.3.Develop the current programme of guided activities and themed events to give local people and visitors authentic experiences and meaningful connections with the special qualities.	Guided walks, public events, activities in villages and training courses
1.4. Increase the uptake of formal educational programmes on offer and provide additional supporting resources on New Forest specific topics.	Through Educators Forum, online curriculum-linked resources, travel grants, school assemblies, eco-groups and teacher training

Objective 2: Address significant and/or widespread negative impacts caused by recreation in the most appropriate, proportionate and effective ways.

This objective recognises that there are many different ways to encourage responsible recreation and to reduce or displace activities that might impact negatively on the New Forest or other people. It also emphasises the shared responsibility for protecting the Forest between relevant organisations and user groups. There is already broad recognition of the main issues, and some good initiatives are in place; but more work is needed to share best practice and jointly explore new ways to achieve the desired results.

Responsible recreation is an admirable goal. To some extent it should follow from education, a sense of respect, ownership, and as is suggested here “shared responsibility” for protection of the Forest.

Draft action	Examples of possible delivery
2.1.To help address a range of different issues and aid joint working, develop a ‘toolkit’ of different ways to influence recreational behaviour.	Best practice advice and training on face-to-face communication, ‘nudge’ techniques, making the right option the easiest one to take, printed materials and signage, websites, digital technology, social media, peer pressure
2.2.Through working groups with appropriate terms of reference or other joint initiatives involving local organisations and user groups, identify and implement the most effective and long lasting strategies to address significant and widespread negative impacts caused by recreation.	Reduce disturbance of wildlife, feeding of animals, animal accidents, litter, verge parking, fungi picking and negative impacts of dog walking, cycling and horse riding
2.3. In support of other techniques, use appropriate and proportionate enforcement activities to deter illegal recreation-related activities.	Address verge parking, litter, illegal flying of drones, wild camping, lighting fires, parking in car parks overnight, cycling off the permitted network and out of control dogs
2.4. Increase the number and effectiveness of staff, volunteers and ambassadors ‘on the ground’ who can encourage people to enjoy recreation responsibly.	Through higher levels of funding, improved partner coordination, habitat mitigation scheme rangers, apprentices, joint training, citizenship policing and a new ambassador programme
2.5.Manage organised activities and larger events in order to minimise negative impacts on wildlife, the working Forest and on local people.	Licences and permissions given for use of Crown land and other open Forest areas, and events given guidance by Safety Advisory Groups

2.1. “To help address a range of different issues and aid joint working,” is an unhelpful word salad and an unnecessary preamble to “develop a ‘toolkit’ of different ways to influence recreational behaviour.” which is vague enough on its own, but at least means: “develop ways to influence recreational behaviour” which is what I hope you’re trying to say.

2.2. Isn’t “Through working groups with appropriate terms of reference or other joint initiatives involving local organisations and user groups, identify and implement the most effective and long lasting strategies to address significant and widespread negative impacts caused by recreation.” exactly what this strategy is meant to be doing? Is one of the “Actions” genuinely for this Strategy to develop itself? The result apparently is to reduce all the ills of the Forest as listed as “Examples of possible delivery”. How that magically transpires is not specified.

2.3. “In support of other techniques”, which other techniques? If you can’t specify them, why mention them? “use appropriate and proportionate enforcement activities to deter illegal recreation-related activities.” Is it necessary to specify, when deterring illegal activities, use of appropriate and proportionate enforcement? Are you suggesting that, for illegal recreation activities disproportionate inappropriate enforcement is a known issue?

“Provide enforcement to stop illegal activities.” or “Enforce law” more apt / readable?

2.4. An initiative to better support, increase “on the ground” presence of staff with ambassador / education and most importantly some level of enforcement power would be welcome. If a Forest user feels that they may encounter Forest Rangers on perhaps one out of ten excursions (or whatever magic number that would inspire the public to feel that they are likely to be occasionally, even with the mildest touch, “policed”) The lofty aspiration perhaps beyond the grasp of current funding/enforcement models might be a Parks Service in the style of Foreign National Parks, like the US whose Rangers have constabulary powers, local wildlife and habitat keeping, and education expertise.

2.5. Again, managing organized activities and larger events, whether through permit systems or accompanied by Safety Advisory Group involvement (in non permit related venues) would require some level of enforcement to either insure that permit or safety stipulations were observed, or to confront those flaunting whatever system is in place. Additionally, it may be desirable, as part of wider road initiatives targeting the fenced and gridded roads to work towards powers for local Authorities to have greater say so in the use of those roads, which may lead to permits required for high capacity road using events.

Objective 3: Reduce the barriers that limit participation in beneficial outdoor recreation among those who need it most

The New Forest already helps people to maintain and improve their health and wellbeing, it provides training and employment opportunities and is an ‘outdoor classroom’ from which we can all learn. However, some people may feel excluded and others do not recognise the value of the Forest (to themselves, the wider population or to future generations). This in turn risks alienating important sectors of society and failing to make the most of the ‘natural health service’ that is available. This objective is therefore about targeted work with specific groups of people at locations that are well-suited for bespoke interventions or activities.

This objective is made more convoluted and possibly misleading by the fact that it makes much of its language vague in that obligatory dance around avoiding using a term that might offend people with disabilities. In doing so, they may have been equally patronizing, offensive, and so unspecific that anyone with a beef against “barriers” of any description, might feel they could be catered to. Additionally, there is an attempt to lump issues including “youth” which surely belong under education, and the general health of outdoor recreation, which in no way demands to be on the Forest (it is not an obligation for the Forest to provide). Conflating these issues is not helpful to any of them.

Society has an obligation to level the playing field to be more inclusive. How this practically extends to the Forest may not, or cannot remove all “barriers”. Replacing styles with kissing gates, or other manageable solutions, is likely within the purview, but paving paths, providing more pedestrian/equestrian/wheelchair friendly bridges is perhaps not. The chief problem with this section is it doesn’t confront the need to have that conversation, merely hinting at that below referencing “appropriate changes”, but with no criteria for what is appropriate. It would be disingenuous to suggest that every inch of access land on the Forest could be made accessible, nor do we think that any user group so demands.

Draft action	Examples of possible delivery
3.1. Inspire more young people to appreciate and understand the special qualities of the New Forest and realise its relevance and value to them and to future generations.	Through wild play, digital technology, training and apprenticeships, award schemes and inspirational youth-led projects
3.2.Develop targeted schemes that harness the health benefits of outdoor activity in and around the New Forest, close to where people live and at agreed locations.	Regular walking, cycling, green prescriptions, volunteering, Green Halo Partnership and Health and Wellbeing Forum projects
3.3.Establish regular liaison between organisations that provide opportunities for outdoor recreation and organisations that represent people with a range of disabilities to identify and implement appropriate changes that will increase accessibility.	Better information, fewer stiles or other ‘barriers’, accessible toilets

3.1. This point is more about using some recreation opportunities to promote education for youth, and belongs in Objective 1.

3.2. When discussing schemes to promote recreational activity, whether part of a health benefit scheme or not, the key aspect we would want to manage is where this takes place. This point belongs in Objective 4.

Sustainable recreation in the right places – managing where it happens
Objective 4: Achieve a net gain for the New Forest’s working and natural landscape and for the recreational experience by influencing where recreation takes place.This objective is primarily about geographical distribution of recreation and associated facilities; there are also links with earlier objectives with respect to specific sites where people are provided with information. An holistic, long-term vision and a short-term plan for agreed gateways, key sites and core routes is needed (within and beyond the National Park). Only by taking this ‘spatial approach’ can we be sure to attract people to the most appropriate sites and reduce the impact on the more sensitive areas and thereby protect the special qualities.

By using this approach, significant net benefits should be achieved. Desirable changes will vary considerably: from ‘easy wins’ such as the provision of additional information through local information points, through changes to the location of car parking provision (about which a range of views is likely to be expressed), to ambitions for new country parks outside the national park boundary that may take many years to come to fruition.

The long-term vision needs to address the following categories of locations:

a) Gateways: key access points such as certain villages, visitor centres and information points, rail stations and car parks near the perimeter of the Forest or close to A roads
b) Key sites: agreed popular sites for recreation such as country parks, wild play sites, campsites and Forest locations with facilities such as larger car parks, visitor information and toilet facilities.
c) Core routes: walking, horse riding and cycling routes (on and off road) including sustainable travel options (walking, cycling or public transport from where people live).

Spatial strategy is at the heart of how we can actually influence recreation, which is why we have continually called for a review of recreation infrastructure since the inception of the Park, and nominated it as one of three key priority projects in our response to last year’s RMS call for views. We strongly support “ambitions for new country parks outside the NP boundary” although this is given only a passing reference in the deliverables for action 4.2.

When discussing key access points, it is worth noting that RMS partner, NFDC took the extremely short sighted decision to close the visitor information centre in Lyndhurst.

Draft action	Examples of possible delivery
4.1.Develop a long term vision for where within and around the National Park people should be encouraged to enjoy outdoor recreation.	Changes to ‘gateways’, key sites and core routes
4.2.Within a year of publishing the update to the 2010 strategy, consult the public and relevant organisations on what changes should ideally be made to ‘gateways’, key sites and core routes to achieve this objective.	Maps showing sensitive habitats, conservation designations, and areas with higher tranquillity which need to be protected from adverse impacts of increased recreation; revisions to the location of parking capacity in the National Park; parking restrictions to prevent physical damage to the Forest; selective improvements to the network of off road cycle routes; rights of way where enhanced signage would be useful; locations for visitor information; locations where safety can be improved e.g. where off-road routes cross busy roads; possible areas where increased recreational opportunities might be desirable on private land and outside of the National Park
4.3.Having taken account of feedback on the above action, and after obtaining appropriate regulatory consents, develop a phased programme of implementing changes that avoid temporary net or ongoing likely significant effects on the recognised features of designated areas.	Extend, relocate or reduce gateways, sites or routes to ensure impacts on recognised features are decreased
4.4. Implement the programme as resources allow, adapting and reassessing individual elements in the light of monitoring.	Ensure that people park in the car parks and not on the verges, and use the sites and routes provided.

4.1. Simply summarizes the key notion that “where” is one of the key tools at our disposal for management of Recreation. This is the crux of what we support.

4.2 Here we have one of the few concrete proposals, and it gibes well with the new spatial strategy for recreation infrastructure which we have proposed and would support. However, by lumbering the project with a year timeframe, which would limit decision making to whatever data is to hand or can be cobbled together within that time, it would inevitably result in an infrastructure just as arbitrary as the one created when the Forest was fenced and gridded half a century ago. Given that within the current RMS, five-year action 5.6.3., the very straightforward project to audit car parking provision within the National Park has not been undertaken within eight years, some scepticism arises as to how this and all other relevant data may be achieved.

There is a further disconnect in not folding in the longer term goals of Objective 6 for data and evidence, and the notion that a spatial strategy should be achieved by public consultation rather than a basic evidence based consideration of the existing habitat and its pressures.

4.3. Merely posits implementing the half-baked brainchild of 4.2.

4.4. Again an instance of presuming the resolution of the list of “Examples of possible delivery”.

Finding funding – and using it effectively
Objective 5: Increase the level of funding available for recreation management so that it is sufficient to address both existing and upcoming needs.This objective recognises that resources are limited and that some aspirations for improved management of recreation can only be achieved if additional funds can be found. For example, car park maintenance could occur more regularly and more rangers could be deployed across the National Park if additional funding can be found. New recreation sites such as country parks would require major capital funding and business plans which ensure they are sustainable financially.

It is both good that a forward strategy considers funding sources for implementation, but also sad that certain elements of basic management including enforcement and education are no longer guaranteed products of the public purse despite their universal benefit (this is not leveled as a criticism of the proposal, but an observation of the situation this objective must address). We do find a disconnect between a Government touting a 25 year Environment plan including promises of greater support and protection for habitats and National Parks, but not offering the cash to ensure these goals may be met.

Draft action	Examples of possible delivery
5.1.Approach and work with organisations to raise funds and other resources for specific recreation-related projects.	Local businesses and charities, Local Enterprise Partnerships, grant making bodies, youth and health-care organisations, Clinical Commissioning Groups
5.2.Develop a coordinated approach among planning authorities in and around the New Forest to mitigate the impacts of new housing on protected areas – with the aim of using developer contributions to support work that protects the Forest.	Agree a common approach to determine the levels of developer contributions, work together to boost awareness raising initiatives (including rangers) and, with funding from the Local Enterprise Partnerships, landowners and businesses, create significant new recreation sites outside of protected areas
5.3.Through consultation, develop mechanisms through which those who benefit from recreation facilities can contribute towards their maintenance and the good of the wider Forest.	Developing and promoting the voluntary Love the Forest visitor gift scheme, inviting donations to support specific recreation facilities, reviewing where and how much people are charged for parking, larger events and provision of services
5.4.Work with the Government to include incentives for access improvements on private land within future land management grants, where these would benefit the public and reduce (or not increase) pressure on nearby sensitive areas.	New walking, cycling and horse riding routes; campsites and other recreation facilities; England Coast Path

5.2. Mitigation schemes are key in and around the Forest, but sadly they need to be drastically redesigned to fit the Forest. Using the Natural England work at Thames Basin Heaths critically undervalues our much richer and under pressure habitat. This is why we proposed a project to make mitigation for development in and near the Forest fit for purpose.

5.3. We welcome allowing for the possibility of charging Forest users, but this should be stated more clearly. If the charging model is adopted, there would likely be backlash, but a sound rationale should be developed to justify this move. A more specific view of what this would fund (enforcement, education, infrastructure maintenance etc) would make the value of charging clearer.

5.4. We outright reject the notion that “where these would benefit the public and reduce (or not increase) pressure on nearby sensitive areas.” could result in the England Coast Path, which under current proposals only increases pressure on our most disturbance sensitive highly designated Coastal habitats.

Data and evidence – to help guide the work
Objective 6: Collate data and evidence to help inform the ongoing management of recreationThere is ample evidence of the benefits of quiet outdoor recreation to our health and wellbeing. It is also clear that people sometimes impact in negative ways on each other, on sensitive wildlife and on important aspects of the working New Forest. The actions in this strategy can and should therefore be progressed.

However, more data and evidence would help target resources more effectively and efficiently, clarify trends in recreation, help predict which interventions are most likely to work and monitor the success of different recreation management initiatives.

Draft action	Examples of possible delivery
6.1.Through existing or new forums, collate existing data and evidence, agree which data can most usefully be used as ‘key indicators’, identify gaps in knowledge and develop plans to improve the evidence-base used by organisations that manage recreation in the New Forest.	Species population data, habitat condition assessments, frequency of incidents caused by recreation, numbers of people taking part in different recreation activities, traffic counts and visitor data from tourism businesses
6.2.Analyse and publish data on a repeat or rolling basis to assess trends in recreational activity and on aspects of the New Forest that might be affected.	Analysing data to show the degree to which recreation management interventions achieve the desired effect, State of the Park Report, Annual Monitoring Reports for local plans

Evidence based decision making should be at the heart of management across the Forest, not merely for recreation. Although it is acknowledged that the Forest is a highly designated Habitat for conservation, it is relatively poorly surveyed. A Recreation Management Strategy demands a more thorough, cohesive knowledgebase to be able to move forward, particularly in respect to spatial management decisions (as in the canard of Action 4.2. proposing spatial maps absent sufficient data/evidence). This does present an opportunity for fostering useful research, surveys and a more comprehensive understanding of populations of local flora and fauna and their sensitivities.

We agree with the element of 6.1. that useful key indicators must be identified and agreed, but would add further that an agreed minimum level or granularity of data is necessary. This would allow pragmatic decisions to be made once some basic understandings have been achieved, avoiding analysis paralysis. We would quibble slightly with 6.2., the emphasis on “trends of activity” over habitat that is (not “might”) be affected.

Adaptive monitoring and implementation – keeping the strategy alive
Objective 7: Regularly review progress against agreed recreation management actions and adapt forward plans to protect the special qualities of the National Park and enable people to enjoy and benefit from them

It is impossible to predict the degree to which the actions in this strategy will be achieved, especially given the ambitious nature of some actions that will depend on new resources being found. However, the six organisations on the RMS Steering Group intend to remain focussed on protecting the Forest for the benefit of future generations; they will therefore continue to meet, monitor progress and consider how to respond to changing circumstances.

Draft action	Examples of possible delivery
7.1.Regularly review the implementation of the actions in this strategy and the degree to which they achieve the desired outcomes.	Feedback from lead organisations, reports from joint forums, trends in the occurrence of incidents, analysis of the effectiveness of interventions where this is possible, feedback from user groups
7.2.Where actions are not progressed or finalised, consider what could be done to redress the situation and gain agreement for revised actions where possible.	Find new resources or prioritise the most important actions
7.3.Review and update the Recreation Management Strategy actions after five years.	Consultation with user groups, local organisations and the public

Reviews and updates are the minimum due diligence to any plan. There’s no objection to its obvious inclusion, but this is another disconnect as to why it is necessary for these elements to be rated on a like/dislike scale in an online opinion poll.

Many of the “actions” from the rest of this proposal are so vaguely defined that it will be difficult to establish criteria. The promise of a “review and update” after five years seems a bit hollow coming from the Park Authority which in eight years has not reviewed the actions of the current strategy, despite containing the same five year promise.

We will continue to insist that a Strategy must contain a Plan with more precisely defined actions, these are mostly ideas and guiding principles about what actions might be done.

Recreation Management: Summary of Our 2017 Response

By Brian Tarnoff on 25/06/2018 in Habitat, News

A summary comparison of our 2017 response to the draft “Actions” proposed by NFNPA in the 2018 survey. For last year’s Future Forest survey, we sidestepped the survey format and focused on three main areas for specific, achievable projects. These were 1) National Park Infrastructure 2) Influencing Adjacent Authorities and Communities and 3) Education Emphasis on Protecting the Forest

1. National Park Infrastructure –

Parking and Camping Provision Assessment
Habitat Assessment / Evidence Base
Actions to lead to provision design Fit For Purpose

The Draft Actions contain an aspiration to create a map to be used to address infrastructure priorities, but this is given an absurd “quick-win” goal of being produced within a year of the adoption of the RMS update. Rather than specifying key criteria and gathering evidence to base a sound spatial strategy, this will be done with whatever haphazard data is to hand or may be hastily compiled within that timeframe leading to an infrastructure just as damagingly arbitrary as that which we’ve inherited.

2. Adjacent Authorities and Communities –

Raise the profile of development on our borders that will affect the Forest
Brief Decision makers on impacts on the Forest and Section 62 Duties
Make nearby communities aware of their representatives responsibilities
Promote adequate, proportional mitigation
Petition Central Government for more strategic targets to take pressure off the Forest

The Draft Actions limit discussion of influencing adjacent authorities to their recreation provisions, where placement of population increases from new development if often the strongest driver in creating recreation pressure on the Forest. As mentioned above mitigation regimes undervalue the New Forest without scaling Thames Basin Heaths framework appropriately.

3. Education –

Develop clearer more straightforward messages
Look to reach other audiences
Easily highlight the Forest’s need for protection
- National Nature Reserve
- Working Farm
- Working Forest
- In context of the ongoing Habitat Loss in the UK

Of course there is a useful “Raising awareness and understanding” action point which is front and centre, but it is focussed very much on doing more of the same, but more often in more places with better production values, not shifting the message to significantly highlight the habitats and ways of life under threat. Getting a very simple key notion across that the Forest needs our collective respect and protection could give those education efforts a more useful focus and lead to positive impact.

This is part of our ongoing engagement in the debate on the National Park Authority’s Review of the Recreation Management Strategy. Our full response to the 2017 survey is available here. Our 2018 response is ongoing.

NFA President’s Report 2017-18

By Brian Tarnoff on 16/04/2018 in News

Our President, Oliver Crosthwaite Eyre sets our work in big picture context, Brexit, the 25 Year Environment Plan, Recreation Management Strategy and Local Plans. Last of our series of Annual Reports relevant to our AGM on Saturday 21st April 2018.

Much has happened over the last twelve months on the national scene that will have an impact, one way or the other, on the Forest, a number of which were mentioned in my report last year.

Farm Subsidies

The Forest’s organisations have come together to form a group in order to deal directly with the Government and present the best case for what our local farmers and landowners need once EU funded subsidies cease. The group, which I have chaired, has already given the Minister responsible for National Parks, Lord Gardiner, a clear and simple request in writing which I personally handed to him at the New Forest Show. We asked for a basic principle to be acknowledged, which is that farmers in highly protected areas of national importance like the New Forest should be rewarded for the public benefit that they supply by conserving the landscape. We also asked that any such reward be governed by a scheme that was locally designed and locally led. I am happy to report that in the long awaited 25 year Environment Plan this principle has been firmly acknowledged.

25 Year Environment Plan

The plan was launched by the Prime Minister herself, which is a very encouraging sign of how high up the government’s agenda conservation has reached. The plan is full of quite widely worded ambitions for our countryside, but overall it is a positive and very encouraging document, the main theme of which is a determination to ensure that there is a net gain for the environment over the 25 year period, with an ambition for this generation to be the first to hand it on in a better state than we found it. Quite a challenge!

I can report that in a follow-up meeting between Lord Gardiner and England’s National Park chairmen, it was made clear to us that special places like the New Forest are expected to become exemplars of landscape conservation. We were all encouraged by the Minister to go away and consider putting together pilot schemes which would show how best to replace the existing regime of EU farm subsidies. The Forest’s farming group has much thinking to do.

Another surprise inclusion in the plan is a “21st century review” of National Parks and AONBS, which together cover 25% of our landscape. Lord Gardiner was not able to tell us what this might entail or when exactly it would begin. One of the key areas that such a review will cover is whether there is scope for the expansion of existing parks and the creation of new ones.

Recreation

The consultation that I mentioned last year has now taken place and the overwhelming priority chosen by the public is raising awareness and understanding of the special qualities of the area (especially the safety of commoners’ animals), with sustainable transport (ie public transport, reduced traffic and safer roads) coming a close second. The consultation was commissioned by a group of the Forest’s statutory bodies, including the Verderers, Forestry Commission and National Park Authority. The next step is now to formulate some clear and concrete actions, which will then be subject to a final public consultation in the summer. The ultimate aim is to ensure that recreation is properly managed, including taking a fresh look at where recreational facilities are provided in the Forest (such as car parks, which have changed very little since the 1970s) and in places that are away from sensitive areas and close to where people live. The group has as its watchword when deciding on any of these actions “Is this good for the Forest?”, not just now but for the next fifty years or more – the long term protection of the Forest must always come first.

New Housing

Our association, the proud watchdog for the Forest, is always on guard when it comes to planning and development, and has been watching the emergence of both of the areas’ Planning Authorities Local Plans, and making comment and criticism whenever necessary. The biggest potential development on the near horizon is the old power station at Fawley, however as I sit on the planning committee at the time of writing I can say no more on the matter! On behalf of our members I will conclude my report with a heartfelt thanks, as ever, to our Chairman and Council for all their hard work and vigilance over the year.

— Oliver Crosthwaite Eyre

NFA Habitat and Landscape 2017-18

By Brian Tarnoff on 15/04/2018 in Habitat, News

RSPB Franchises Lodge - credit Terry Bagley

Habitat and Landscape Chair, Brian Tarnoff reviews with uncharacteristic brevity the past year on the Forest Design Plan, Recreation Management Strategy and the England Coast Path. Part of our series of Annual Reports relevant to our AGM on Saturday 21st April 2018. Updates since original publication, reflecting these ever changing issues, are provided below each section.

Once again I am full of gratitude and amazement at the generous contributions of our committee members this year. This included countless hours volunteered to pour over one of the most vital consultations we’ve seen in some time, and days spent trudging the Forest in all weathers on site visits for works proposed by the Forestry Commission on the open Forest.

The Forest Design Plan

Consultation continued this year. Our ecologists took part in round table discussions on this year’s draft, a palpable improvement over the March 2016 version. The detail, which had concerned us previously, now was much more in line with the commitment from the 1999 Minister’s Mandate (strongly supported by subsequent policy) to restore pasture woodlands, heathlands, valley mires and Ancient and Semi-Natural native woodland, and favour broadleaves over conifer. In these meetings, Forestry Commission staff expressed sound underlying principles that would serve this plan, both in its current form, and going forward, to manage towards these goals.

Our main quibble is that the documentation of the plan does not adequately express those principles. This may seem a small thing, given how close the detail plan is to delivering many of our Association’s goals, but without them in place the plan may not be able to show its logic adequately to stand on its own against Habitats Regulations Assessment, or possible changes in future management of the Forest which could veer away from the promise this plan holds.

After the public consultation on the plan, the Forest Services review determined that consent under EIA regulations is required for the deforestation proposals (some areas being returned to open Forest habitats). Forest Enterprise has been tasked with producing an Environmental Statement for consideration, and we are amongst the stakeholders invited to a scoping exercise in January 2018. DEFRA have agreed to roll forward some elements of the FC’s expired felling license, which was dependent on the now unknown date for approval of the plan by the Inspectorate for renewal.

The Forestry Commission have opened up the next stage of consultation which runs for eight weeks from 11 Apr 2016 to 6 Jun 2016. This will produce the version of the plan which will be submitted for the inspectorate, and final consultation later this year. The NFA will argue that the planned eight weeks may not be sufficient for less nimble organizations (those that meet less frequently, such as Parish Councils, or those larger whose relevant knowledge is spread across expert and consequentially busy staff); we would prefer ten to twelve weeks. When the timeframe was sprung upon the great breadth of Forest organizations in attendance at a special launch day on March 22nd, the FC suggested that they may be “flexible” about the length of the consultation. We will be making our case later this month.

Wetland Restoration Strategy

In a similar spirit of openness the Forestry Commission proposed a Wetland Restoration Strategy at a well-attended December workshop including representatives across the spectrum of the debate. In addition to more constructive engagement with all stakeholders, we hope this will lead to a monitoring program that is apt, affordable and will adequately support future efforts.

The FC have just updated us (12/04/2018) with a view of present and future monitoring plans. We believe these will be robust and adequately adapt and augment standard river monitoring techniques to the unique challenges of the New Forest’s streams and wetlands. We hope sufficient funding will be allowed to cover a range of catchments including both restored and untouched.

England Coast Path

Understandably our section of Coast, with a nearly uninterrupted series of very protected habitats (some garnering between four and five layers of designation, nationally and internationally), has been a very thorny problem for Natural England, who have nudged the consultation forward throughout the year. Once mooted for March 2017, now February 2018 (the original target date for implementation was March 2018).

Although a habitat adjacent inland route may be viable, the coastal margin created by the default spreading room designated in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 would potentially create up to 3,500 acres of new access land on these easily disturbed habitats, where it would cause irreparable damage. We hope that Natural England will exclude these, but even if they do, the Ordnance Survey will not show those exclusions. Our main role currently seems to be to remind one and all of the immense importance of our Coast with greater fragility and importance than the precious habitats of the Crown Lands that typically draw our focus.

The eight week consultation on the Highcliffe-Calshot stretch finally began on 14th March 2018 and is due to run until 9th of May 2018. The route itself (barring some quibbles) is reasonable, however the exclusions for spreading room are either incomplete or lacking classification for habitat protection. The consultation documents themselves are of greater scale and complexity (the sensitive features appraisal alone, at 215 pages is three times larger than the equivalent document for any of the other published stretches), and yet we’re expected to comment on them within the standard 8 week consultation window. The Sensitive Features Appraisal is rife with error and stops short of a full Habitats Regulation Assessment (relying on flimsy mitigation measures which have failed elsewhere). We could go on (and we will elsewhere….), but in short, the needs of our habitat point up severe flaws in the legislation, specification and consultation processes.

Recreation Management Strategy

The welcome review of the NPA’s Recreation Management Strategy has been mentioned above in this annual report. Unfortunately the public survey reiterated paragraphs from the current strategy alongside each potential subject heading, leaving some confused as to whether to respond to these remarks or implicitly approve them? For our response we asked that the next RMS should feature priority projects with clear objectives and timeframes. We proposed a comprehensive review of recreation infrastructure within the park, including surveys of habitats, campsites and parking, with actions leading to a provision that is ‘Fit for Purpose’. We proposed initiatives to raise the profile of the National Park so the decision makers of adjacent Authorities and communities become more aware of their impacts on the Forest and ‘Section 62 Duties’, create adequate, proportional mitigation, and petition Central Government for more strategic targets to take pressure off the Forest. We also asked for clearer messages in Education that would easily highlight the Forest’s need for protection as a National Nature Reserve, Working Farm and Working Forest.

Our full response to the RMS survey is here. Subsequent remarks on the Park Authority’s flawed draft interpretation here.

Going Forward — Other areas of concern to address in 2018:

Dibden Bay (ABP) / Fawley Power Station (Fawley Waterside Ltd)

Along with Associated British Ports revisiting their goal of a deep-water container port at Dibden Bay, our Association and the whole of the Forest will be facing many challenges for renewed development of the already heavily urbanised Waterside. This includes the proposal by Fawley Waterside Ltd for the development of a new town, with an estimated population of 3,500 on the site of the Fawley Power Station. The development on the brownfield portion of the site, originally exempted from the National Park, might be hard to resist, but the current proposal includes a ‘village’ built out into the National Park on Tom Tiddler’s Ground*, which is a young coastal grazing marsh and forms a rough habitat that is prime for rehabilitation.

— excerpted with updates and links from the NFA Habitat and Landscape Committee Annual report, by Committee Chair, Brian Tarnoff

* Tom Tiddler’s Ground is considered over several pages in committee member Clive Chatter’s tome Flowers of the Forest.

Finally, we should note that many of our committee members were involved in steering the process which led to the purchase by the RSPB of a major landholding in the Forest, now to be known as RSPB Franchises Lodge. We’ve been embargoed from discussing this effort as it has unfolded over the years (and at long last announced on 23 Mar 2018). I wish to thank the RSPB for the purchase, and the members of our committee who identified and shepherded this opportunity to fruition.

NFA Planning and Transport 2017-18

By Brian Tarnoff on 14/04/2018 in News, Planning

Here Planning and Transport Chair, Graham Baker weighs in, with some frustrations, over the past year, full of mounting concerns of increased pressure on the Forest. Part of our series of Annual Reports relevant to our AGM on Saturday 21st April 2018.

It is difficult to read the 2016 planning report and not to conclude that 2017 has been a largely wasted year. You will therefore excuse any frustrations that show.

There remains little between our Association and the National Park Authority (NPA) over individual planning applications. In the defined villages we are succeeding in coping with the need to increase central housing densities without disturbing the spacious nature elsewhere and coping with the reduction in retail outlets without losing the vitality of High Streets. Residents agree that the type of housing required is modest, suitable for younger people starting out and older people downsizing. But we are challenged by developers’ desire to build what is most profitable without regard to local need; currently this is managed flats for old people who can afford high charges.

Second home ownership and short-term letting are growing at a rate that could exceed the planned increase in housing numbers. This sometimes requires planning permission and it is always worth knowing the extent of the problem, so please let us know if it happening near to you.

In the countryside problems remain dispersed but accumulatively erode character and traditions. Commoning properties are sold to the extremely well off who then seek to convert their humble holding into something else. Extensions are maximised, tatty outbuildings are replaced by three car garages with fully equipped offices above, large loose boxes are replaced by a row of pretty stables, ménages replace a pleasing adjacent paddock and elaborate electric gates or cattle grids replace five bars. Any common grazing land owned outside the new fence is “tidied” – this usually means easing the entry of the Land Rover Evoque by dumping tonnes of gravel on common grazing land. Often these activities do not break planning rules. Where it does we seeks first to have the applicant reconsider and secondly seek refusal.

Discussions continue on the revised Local Plans of the National Park and NFDC. We have achieved protection for the NF Special Protection Area broadly similar to that of the Thames Basin Heaths. This caused several proposed housing sites to be withdrawn, but rather than reduce numbers, NFNPA sought more sites, previously considered unsuitable, to keep the likely new dwelling numbers at around 35 per annum. The average house price in the Park is £581,000, over 15 times average earnings and there is a desperate need for affordable homes for local people. The NPA recognise the problem but their solutions lack ambition. We believe a straightforward policy that all new housing should be affordable stands the best chance of resisting incessant government meddling and developer manipulation and that the NPA should accept a greater role in securing underutilised publicly owned land in the villages for development.

Since we have become a National Park, the NPA’s own data reports that the success of many species of ground and low nesting birds has suffered a “marked decline”. The universally agreed cause is disturbance from recreation and the extra dwellings being built around the New Forest will result in an additional million visitors per annum, considerably worsening the problem. Despite this it is difficult to find any action stemming from the NPA’s 75 page Recreational Management Strategy since its publication in 2010. The planning committee will do all it can to ensure the emerging Local Plans recognise recreational pressure on the National Park as the primary problem facing the New Forest and that compensation from developers is used in forthright measures to reverse the problem. The relocation or closure Forestry Commission car parks will be one of the most effective management tools in reducing disturbance and we have developed sophisticated mapping techniques to measure levels of disturbance from them.

In 2017, planning volunteers have scrutinised over 1,000 planning applications, responded to a dozen consultations, developed maps, maintained good relationships with the parishes, plotted aircraft routes and surveyed overhead cable routes (with some success the line south and west of Burley is to be buried in 2018). Our thanks go to them all.

Planning & Transport Committee Chair – Graham Baker

NFA Council and Trustees 2017-18

By johnward on 11/04/2018 in News

With our AGM fast approaching on Saturday 21st April 2018, this and next week we’ll feature our annual reports. NFA Chair John Ward reports on the work of our council and trustees on both this year’s work and our 150th Anniversary celebrations.

Formal meetings of Council were held six times and for the Board of Trustees four times during 2017. In addition there were regular meetings of the Habitats and Landscape Committee and the Planning and Transport Committee; and also ad hoc meetings of the Education Working Group. At the end of 2017 there were eight trustees and sixteen nontrustee members of Council.

We have continued to share issues and experiences with other National Park Societies and as a Council member of the Campaign for National Parks (CNP): and have collaborated with them to co-ordinate responses to government and other national consultations and draft proposals that will affect National Parks. Examples of national consultations and draft proposals with implications for the New Forest that have crossed our desks in 2017 include:

Department of Transport consultation on the future of strategic roads
Emergency Services Network (ESN) – mobile communications
Campaign for Better Transport Report
Ofgem open letter on RIIO-2 Framework
Electricity transmission owner stakeholder consultation
Government Housing White Paper
Government proposals for Permitted Development Rights
Proposed UK Minerals Strategy

We have held informal liaison meetings with the National Park Authority and Forestry Commission; and attend various New Forest forums and working groups including the Consultative Panel and meetings of the Verderers Court. The Friends of the New Forest were in evidence on stands at the New Forest Show and at Roydon Woods Woodfair. Sponsorship funding support was given for the animal accident ‘advert’ on the back of the New Forest Tour bus through 2017; and also for the ‘Our Past Our Future’ projects for ranger training and for habitat restoration. The Association had previously committed to support the project to develop housing for commoners at Rockford farm and during 2017 we contributed to the costs of preparing drawings and making a planning application. On the research side we made a funding contribution to the New Forest Curlew Project.

2017 was, of course, our 150th Anniversary year. At the end of 2016 we launched “Saving the New Forest”, the book written by Peter Roberts telling the story of our Association. It has been selling well throughout 2017. The story of the Association and the New Forest from the mid 19th century until today was put together into a slide show presentation. This has been given to more than 20 groups, reaching over 1,000 people most of whom had not previously heard of us and gaining donations to support our work to protect the Forest.

We organised and hosted the National Parks Societies annual conference, held this year in October at Balmer Lawn Hotel and attended by 50 delegates from other national parks, the Campaign for National Parks, other national bodies and New Forest organisations.

During the year our Anniversary programme provided 16 events. Walks and visits included, the Verderers Court and Lyndhurst Church, Archaeology in Sloden Inclosure, Caring for Pondhead Inclosure, Needs Ore, Rockford and a Fungi Walk at Rans Wood. Following the AGM there were options to visit Furzey Gardens or Minstead Study Centre.

Two events were held specifically to celebrate the 150-year anniversary:

Lunch at MJs restaurant was attended by our Patron, Belinda Lady Montagu, and President, Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre, together with NFA members and trustees, affiliated Parishes and representatives from the Forestry Commission, Verderers, Commoners and National Park Authority.
Council members and invited guests gathered at the Crown Hotel in Lyndhurst on the 22nd of July to raise a glass and mark the day on which the New Forest Association was founded.

We held two receptions and exhibition private views – The New Forest Open Art Exhibition at the New Forest Centre, and New Forest Bird Sculpture by Geoffrey Dashwood at St Barbe Museum and Gallery.

Purely social events proved to be less popular with Friends of the New Forest and a summer garden party and an autumn golf day were cancelled due to lack of support. Unfortunately the intended Frohawk Walk was also cancelled at short notice due to a gypsy drive-in clashing with this event. Ours was not the only anniversary this year. It was the 800th anniversary of the New Forest Charter and panels about the New Forest Association were included in a display at the New Forest Centre. In November we hosted a small delegation from the Anglo-Portuguese community who visited the New Forest in November to mark the 100th anniversary of the arrival of 150 Portuguese troops to assist with timber production for the war effort.

Two large events for 200 people, both of which were booked out with waiting lists, provided the bookends for the Anniversary Year.

The first was “What Future for the New Forest – A Foot in the Past and an Eye to the Future”, with a keynote address from Council member, Clive Chatters followed by responses from Alison Barnes, Chief Executive of the New Forest National Park Authority, Bruce Rothney, Deputy Surveyor for the New Forest and Dominic May, Official Verderer, together with the audience. Clive identified the management of recreation in the Forest as being a key issue, and concluded that ‘this generation’s responsibility to secure the future of the Forest now lies with us’. By the end of the evening there seemed to be an emerging consensus, particularly with respect to recreation management, that it feels like ‘one of those moments for bold decision making’.

Our final, very well attended event was “An Evening of New Forest Films with Lord Montagu”. This was hosted at the John Montagu Theatre in the Beaulieu Motor Museum, and featured a fascinating array of archive footage of the Forest, some not publicly viewed previously. We thank both Lord Montagu and Dr. Manuel Hinge for this most fitting closing event for our Anniversary year, and their untiring efforts to preserve films that provide an historical, cultural, and community window on the Forest.

Recreation management continued to be a major issue for us through the year. There have been several presentments to the Verderers Court echoing similar concerns, and at the New Forest Show the National Park Authority launched a consultation on reviewing their Recreation Management Strategy. We responded to this consultation and also opened up a dialogue on the subject with the Forestry Commission. We believe this is the most pressing issue needing to be addressed within the Forest and significant action must to be taken to review and change the recreation infrastructure within the Forest. To succeed his must be driven by the statutory authorities with as much vision as those who implemented the 1971 Conservation of the New Forest proposals and not just end in fine words but with little tangible effect.

Chair – John Ward

DEVELOPMENT THREAT TO THE NEW FOREST

By johnward on 23/02/2018 in News

DEVELOPMENT THREAT TO THE NEW FOREST – URGENT
Please help us to help the New Forest. Your action is needed now!

Friends of the New Forest (New Forest Association) is urging our members and supporters to respond to a public consultation in order to protect part of the New Forest National Park from a development scheme that is proposing over 1500 houses (bigger than the size of Lyndhurst) to be built on or near the site of Fawley Power Station.

We believe that this development will have a detrimental impact on the ecology of the area and are urging people to oppose the scheme before the public consultation deadline to the National Park Authority Local Plan ends on 28th February.

Although the Fawley Power Station site itself is in the control of New Forest District Council, it is an ‘island’ within the National Park and the development impacts will fall heavily on the National Park. The proposals of the National Park Authority’s Local Plan could pave the way to development of 1500 or more houses that would clearly constitute a major development.

Your comments on Fawley Power Station Site in the New Forest National Park Authorities Plan should reflect:

• Need for use of site for building not proven.
• Site could be made safe and managed for conservation.
• In the long term the site could be included within the National Park.

If it is developed on the scale proposed (1500 houses) there will a catastrophic environmental impact on the New Forest:

• Extra traffic will cause loss of tranquillity
• Increased risk to Forest livestock – may lead to road widening and fencing.
• Extra recreation will bring more litter and more disturbances.
• Extra recreational horse keeping will raise the cost of renting back up land to beyond what a commoner can afford.

A town of this size will require additional development of schools, surgeries, shops, and pubs.
It will be larger than Lyndhurst (1374 households at 2011) – Would this be tolerated in, say, the Lake District?

In addition it is stated that National Park land will be required for an additional 120 houses:

‘Viability work commissioned by the Authority and New Forest District Council concludes that without some limited development in the National Park, this major brownfield site could only come forward with a very high density development on the brownfield site outside the National Park – development that in itself would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding National Park. ‘

This feels like being held to ransom and is clearly nonsense.

Many of the National Park Authority members are also Councillors of NFDC who are pursuing this development. How independent is the National Park Authority and how does this development meet the dual purposes of the Park?

This development does not foster the economic and social well-being of the local communities within the National Park – it drops a complete new settlement into its midst which does not in any way comply with National Park purposes.

Another major anomaly is the lack of protection for back-up grazing land. The practice of commoning is recognised as essential to the ecological and heritage assets of the area. Policy SP48 includes ‘…resisting the loss of back-up grazing (which is fundamental to commoning) through development…’

BUT Local Plan Policies SP22 and SP24 recommend approval for 60 houses at Ashurst and 40 houses at Sway that would result in the loss of back up grazing in direct contradiction to the earlier policy.

PLEASE OBJECT TO THE LOCAL PLAN
BEFORE THE END OF THIS MONTH
Particularly Policies SP22, SP24 and SP25

YOU MAY OBJECT BY emailing THE NATIONAL PARK PLANNING TEAM AT:
policy@newforestnpa.gov.uk

BY FILLING IN THE NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY FORM AT:
https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/GJRLLJJ

Information about the local plan and a copy of the local plan are here:
http://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/info/20040/planning_policy/361/local_plan

We are grateful for your support.

Friends of the New Forest
Registered Charity No. 260328

1 2 3 Next →

Top Menu

Navigation