Top Menu

Navigation

Tag Archives | NFA

Recreation Management Strategy and Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership Strategy

By on 18/01/2018 in Habitat, News

Our representation to Public Questions from the January meeting of the New Forest National Park Authority. We point out flaws in the draft interpretation of last years Recreation Management Strategy Survey (which goes too far in over egging the results), and the undercooked Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership Strategy (which doesn’t go nearly far enough).

Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership Strategy

… is an important initiative, however it currently falls short by only considering SPA planning designations and not the full range of important coastal and international designations. As with much mitigation work, little has been done to scale the mitigation to the level of protected features (Thames Basin Heaths is a decent baseline, but has much fewer protected features than our coastline).[*] The Government’s new 25 Year Environment Plan seeks to boost conservation of both designated and undesignated habitats. With these shortcomings, and the new considerations of the recently minted 25 year plan, it would be premature to adopt. We hope you will seek a review and have the strategy amended accordingly.

Recreation Management Strategy

I have previously noted problems with the survey. It made far too much reference to the previous RMS, including out-of-context headings (not even explained as “Summary of 2010 actions”), which constrained much debate to those topics, and were seen as manipulative leading statements. The responses are from an unscientific self-selecting sample, and although the Findings Report admits this[†], it then characterizes some results as authoritative, an unwarranted exaggeration. I’ll give one example:

“Implement and promote the England Coast Path and associated access rights” was the survey summary for Coastal Access. This provided no explanation that the “Associated rights” included coastal margin / spreading room which would potentially turn 3500 acres of our most sensitive breeding and wintering bird habitats (with up to five overlapping layers of national and international designations including an Area of Special Protection) into access land. 23 respondents thought ”the route will attract people away from more sensitive inland areas” (a polar opposite of the truth). It is more than likely that few had heard of the ECP outside of the survey, or would have nominated it, if it hadn’t been mentioned. Yet the concluding report states “The consultation responses suggest that there is wide public support for the England Coast Path,”[‡] which is a very strong extrapolation of 22% of 1500 respondents[§]. If less than a quarter support a proposal, is that wide? If mooted, absent its implications, is that even valid?

Although I do not doubt the hard work, enthusiasm, and sincerity of those conducting this opinion poll. Please do not take as a referendum what has been a success of public engagement, but falls very short of providing anything more than the vaguest bellwether. The Recreation Management Strategy should be driven primarily by the need to fulfill the purposes and protect the special qualities of the National Park. It should focus on specific and practical steps for Management of Recreation not another list of aspirations promising delivery of recreation.

Unfortunately the format of Public Questions at NFNPA meetings limits each speaker to 3 minutes, even when speaking on multiple subjects. This requires a terse approach and presumption of knowledge of underlying reports (which NPA members ought to, but are not guaranteed to have read or digested). Further reading for the curious is noted below:

[*] NFNPA 538/18 – Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership Strategy Adoption Annex 1 page 19 6.15 “The methodology used to calculate the figures is based on that developed by LPA’s within the Thames Basin Heaths mitigation scheme.”

[†] NFNPA 539/18 Recreation Management Strategy Annex 1 Findings Report “No attempt was made to limit participation in the consultation to a balanced and representative sample survey approach of the local (or wider) population.” page 3 para 8

[‡] NFNPA 539/18 – Recreation Management Strategy Annex 2 page 8, 3.7

[§] 528 (34%) responded to the “Coastal Access” heading, 343 (22%) supported the summary of the topic actions.
0

Friends of the New Forest host national conference

By on 21/10/2017 in News

National Parks Societies Conference 2017

The Friends of the New Forest recently hosted a three-day national conference at Balmer Lawn Hotel, Brockenhurst, which was attended by representatives from the other twelve National Park Societies in England and Wales. These Societies are charities which act as ‘critical friends’ to each government National Park Authority, and are the voice for their National Park – its friend and watchdog. Also in attendance were representatives from the Campaign for National Parks, National Parks England and local organisations including the Verderers of the New Forest.

After long journeys from the far corners of England and Wales, delegates met up over an excellent dinner after which Head Agister Jonathan Gerrelli and local photographer Barry Whitcher entertained them with a sparkling illustrated explanation of the role of the New Forest Commoners and the work of the Agisters including organising the annual Drifts to round up ponies.

The following morning was devoted to presentations on the history of the Friends of the New Forest, and the multi-agency ‘Our Past, Our Future’ Landscape Partnership, which is undertaking 21 projects to restore lost habitats, develop Forest skills and inspire a new generation to champion and care for the New Forest. Then delegates heard about the role of ‘Go New Forest’ in delivering marketing and promotional support for the New Forest destination and of New Forest Marque, whose accreditation scheme exists to develop and promote the production, processing and distribution of local produce from the New Forest. Finally there was a session about communicating your organisation’s aims in a ‘post-truth’ society.

Jane Overall talking about New Forest Marque

The delegates then stretched their legs and continued to learn on one of two study tours: a Forest walk to learn about combatting non-native species and stream restoration, and a boat trip to Hurst Castle followed by a sea wall walk to hear about climate change and its impact on the New Forest coast. Returning wind-blown and in some cases muddy, delegates had time to meet up and chat about their matters of mutual interest, with Brexit looming over all. Following another good dinner, they were entertained by a talk from Woodgreen artist Pete Gilbert who managed to tell them his exciting life story while producing a painting of a New Forest scene before their eyes.

Nick Wardlaw leading stream restoration study group

Catherine Chatters leading non-native species study group

The final morning involved further presentations on the New Forest Trust, Forest Design Plan, and the work and concerns of the Commoners Defence Association before Bruce Rothnie, Deputy Surveyor, tackled the thorny issue of recreation management and its relationship to the primary purpose of conserving and enhancing natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage. Alison Barnes from the New Forest National Park Authority gave an overview of current challenges; and finally Fiona Howie, Chief Executive of the national organisation Campaign for National Parks, summarised the many current problems being faced by National Parks, including the uncertain future for their farming and commoning communities, and the important role that their ‘critical friends’, the National Park Societies, have to play.

Delegates then set off to return to their homes as far away as Dartmoor, the Lake District, the North York Moors and the Broads, to name but a few.

0

Recreation Management Strategy Survey Response

By on 09/08/2017 in Habitat, News

Our response to the Future Forest RMS Survey launched by the New Forest National Park Authority.  We call for priority projects to address outdated infrastructure, boost regard for protecting the Forest with neighbouring authorities, and education focusing on the Forest status as a National Nature Reserve and working commoning landscape.  We sidestepped the unintentionally restrictive and misleading elements of the survey (including categories and canned language from the previous Strategy document) to focus on demand for plans for action with clear goals and realistic time frames.

Recreation Management Strategy Survey Response

The New Forest Association welcomes this opportunity to feed into ongoing Recreation Management on the New Forest and this survey meant to guide the Strategy’s next incarnation. We hope this process will deliver a more focussed strategy that yields high priority projects to reform our outdated recreation infrastructure, and elevates the discussion of the National Park as a protected natural landscape requiring a duty of care from ourselves and our neighbours.

Reference to Park Purposes and Special Qualities

Both the New Forest National Park and its younger sibling, the South Downs, are the two most densely populated national parks in the UK, and have significant populations in environs for regular use and day visitors. Unlike the less populated, more remote parks, the recreation management goals should firmly be based on the purpose to Protect.

This is summed up in English National Parks and the Broads UK Government Vision and Circular 2010:

However, in light of research published in 2005 (20), the Government recognises that not all forms of outdoor recreation are appropriate in each Park and that activities which would have an adverse impact on the Parks’ special qualities and other people’s enjoyment of them may need to be excluded (in order to meet the requirements of section 11A(2) of the 1949 Act).

All of the “Special qualities”: outstanding natural beauty, habitat, heritage, commoning / working forest, free roaming livestock, tranquillity, quiet recreation, low levels of urbanisation are under threat from increased recreation pressure which disturbs and destroys habitat, creates wear and tear on the fabric of the Forest and interrupts tranquillity. The aim is not to invite more recreation than the Forest may sustain, but to protect the Forest by managing the recreation that takes place here, and honour the Sandford Principle as enshrined by the 1995 Act.

An Actual Management Strategy

We need more focus on practical, achievable goals, along with a plan that can achieve them within defined timeframes to which the Park and its stakeholders may commit. It’s all very well and good to list our many aspirations as the current strategy does, but few of the “within 5 years” goals have been achieved in its first seven years.

The main way we can control where recreation happens within the Forest is where people park and camp. Outside of the Park we can call for greater alternative recreation provision, and less development that swells the population and moves a hard urban edge toward the park boundaries. Priority projects must be chosen and developed from our aspirations, to achieve significant gains to Protect the Forest, particularly the open access areas of the Crown Lands and their adjacent Commons.

Infrastructure Within the Park

(Sustainable services and facilities / Camping and caravanning / Joined Up Routes / England Coast Path)

We’ve inherited an outdated infrastructure imposed in the 1960’s that replaced the previous free for all with over 130 Forestry Commission car parks and 10 camp sites. While these disperse activity throughout the Forest, and have come to be relied on by their users, no one can say that they are in the best places to protect our more sensitive habitats and species from disturbance. We do know that the campsites in the A&O Woodlands of Holland’s Wood and Denny were slated for removal under the SAC Management Plan 2001 (their management for camping has degraded their habitat, our campsite survey showed these have less than half the canopy they ought).

Practical steps to make this provision fit for purpose must be taken. A straightforward assessment of the current provision could easily be carried out ASAP. A well designed assessment of the habitat to create the evidence base against which to model future proposals for recreation infrastructure placement would be the next highest priority. Discussions may include charging for car parks to cover maintenance and on the ground resources, models for camping provision both elsewhere on FC land and/or on private land. Delivery of “joined up routes” and The England Coast Path would be subject to the results of any relevant habitat assessments and should not go forward in their absence.

Infrastructure Outside the Park

(Influencing recreational provision beyond the boundaries of the National Park)

A huge wave of development is proposed on our borders, given little strategic consideration for the Park, unreasonable housing targets from Central Government for all local authorities, token mitigation which does not adequately reflect the value of the Forest, we’ve little hope for avoiding a substantial increase of recreational activity that will be dumped on the Forest. The Forest is under a palpable threat, and needs influence on both development and recreation provision outside the Park.

Our adjacent and concurrent authorities have shown little respect to their Environment Act 1995 Section 62 duty to have regard to National Park purposes. Sometimes the opposite, Test Valley Borough Council once proposed using National Trust Foxbury (adjacent to Common and an SSSI candidate) within the park as SANG mitigation for one of their housing schemes. Section 62 must be considered by our neighbours, not merely for mitigation purposes but for all development.

The mitigation regime is limited, flawed, and does not proportionally value the New Forest. SANG mitigation schemes are based on figures developed by Natural England regarding the Thames Basin Heaths SPA which has a fraction of the notified features that the New Forest possesses, if these were properly scaled up to reflect the Forest’s relative habitat value, many SANG’s on offer would need to be nearly the size of the Forest itself. SANG sites themselves may have their own designated habitats that are sacrificed, and many are proposed with no long term plan or funding for their maintenance.

We must make the debate about these allocations more visible, more public. The New Forest is the last stand for many of its habitats throughout the UK, it is of national and international importance, our neighbours and central government need to be constantly reminded of this.

Education

(Raising awareness and understanding)

Whilst this is already the National Park’s strongest suit, there are certain nuances missing. The National Park has made great inroads in areas such as social media. However, even at our own 150th Anniversary keynote event in January 2017, the audience of very engaged locals clearly included many who still did not understand the Park’s purposes, functions or capabilities. This perhaps suggests that the Park still has work to do piercing the bubble beyond their current success.

One of the key problems the National Park has to overcome, is the word “Park” in its name, which too often is taken for “a large public garden or area of land used for recreation” . Explaining the legislation that gives the “National” prefix its protective connotation, and the slew of habitat designations and their acronyms does not thoroughly dispel that erroneous notion. The message up front should be simplified, the Crown Lands have the status of a National Nature Reserve, a Working Farm and Forest. With that in mind we can then ask “what activities are appropriate there”, “in order to protect such a place, what are you willing to do differently or do without?” “We have the privilege of open access to this place, what responsibilities must we take on?”

Conclusions

The next RMS should include the following priority projects:

  • National Park Infrastructure –
    • Parking and Camping Provision Assessment
    • Habitat Assessment / Evidence Base
    • Actions to lead to provision design Fit For Purpose
  • 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
  • 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

Whilst other aspirations remain, solid plans and policies addressing these areas will have the most impact. Consultation over future versions of the RMS should include messages consistent with the National Park’s purposes and priorities, and not be shy in making a case for resources and changes necessary for implementation. The NFA hope to be able to support this Authority in its efforts to Manage Recreation in The New Forest, and willing to lend our time, knowledge and resources towards achieving these priority tasks in provision redesign, influence on strategic planning and mitigation, and education.

ADDENDUM:

English National Parks and the Broads
UK Government Vision and Circular 2010

4. Priority Outcomes for 2010 – 2015 and suggested actions
4.1 A Renewed Focus on Achieving the Park Purposes page 10

  1. The Parks contain a variety of landscapes, capable of accommodating many different types of leisure activity. Authorities should continue to identify and promote new access and recreational opportunities and ways of delivering them, working proactively with a range of statutory and non-statutory interests such as local access forums (see section 5.6), Natural England, English Heritage, voluntary sectors and, particularly, farmers, commoners and landowners. However, in light of research published in 2005 (20), the Government recognises that not all forms of outdoor recreation are appropriate in each Park and that activities which would have an adverse impact on the Parks’ special qualities and other people’s enjoyment of them may need to be excluded (in order to meet the requirements of section 11A(2) of the 1949 Act).

(20 Demand for Outdoor Recreation in the English National Parks – Countryside Agency October 2004 (updated March 2005 and published alongside a Guide to Good Practice in managing and promoting outdoor recreation in the Parks) )

NFNPA/RPC 51/08 Page 1

The National Park’s special qualities
The New Forest National Park’s landscape is unique; it is a ‘living’ and working remnant of medieval England with an overwhelming sense of continuity, tradition, and history. It is the survival of not just one special quality but a whole range of features that brings a sense of completeness and integrity.

These features include:

  • the New Forest’s outstanding natural beauty: the sights, sounds and smells of ancient woodland with veteran trees, heathland, bog, autumn colour and an unspoilt coastline with views of the Solent and Isle of Wight
  • an extraordinary diversity of plants and animals of international importance
  • a unique historic, cultural and archaeological heritage from royal hunting ground to ship-building, salt making and 500 years of military coastal defence
  • an historic commoning system that maintains so much of what people know and love as ‘the New Forest’ forming the heart of a working landscape based on farming and forestry
  • the iconic New Forest Pony together with donkeys, pigs and cattle roaming free
  • tranquillity in the midst of the busy, built up south of England
  • wonderful opportunities for quiet recreation, learning and discovery in one of the last extensive, gentle landscapes in the south including unmatched open access on foot and horseback
  • a healthy environment: fresh air, clean water, local produce and a sense of ‘wildness’, low levels of urbanisation
  • strong and distinctive local communities with real pride in and sense of identity with their local area

 

  • SUMMARY: outstanding natural beauty, habitat, heritage, commoning / working forest, free roaming livestock, tranquillity, quiet recreation, low levels of urbanisation, local communities
0

The Forestry Commission’s New Forest Fungi Policy

By on 29/09/2016 in News

The New Forest Association are pleased that the Forestry Commission are implementing a “Look, Don’t Pick” rule regarding fungi foraging on the New Forest Site of Special Scientific Interest under their stewardship. This affirms the protection our habitat deserves. This is consistent with their obligations to the protections of the SSSI, their management of the New Forest SSSI as a National Nature Reserve and their powers to authorise or deny picking of fungi under consent from Natural England.  This brings the FC policy in line with the ban on fungi foraging on the Commons the National Trust, and the Nature Reserves the Wildlife Trust manage within the Forest.

We hope that enforcement may be hard hitting on  pickers taking undue advantage of the forest whether commercial or not.  Enforcement may also be soft and educational for casual foragers.  The message is the same, this is a protected habitat and landscape, leave the fungi to nature and the autumn display for all to see.

It brings the FC back in line with the guidance 1998 Wild Mushroom Pickers Code of Conduct, the misreading of which was the source of the arbitrary 1.5 kg “limit”, which has absolutely no basis in law. The code clearly meant the limit for undesignated habitats, not SSSI  or National Nature Reserves.  An allowance should never have been implemented at all in this protected habitat.

NCC Consent 25 January 1988 (subsequently under Natural England)
The Nature Conservancy Council issued the following consent to the FC regarding the above operation:-  “The collection of fungi as authorised by the Forestry Commission, subject to periodic review by the FC and the NCC.”

FC/Verderers/English Nature Declaration of Intent 25 July 1995
“The Forestry Commission will continue to manage the New Forest as an area with the status of a National Nature Reserve and to maintain the nature conservation interests for which it is designated under national and international legislation or agreements.”

In July 2015 the NFA launched its campaign for a very specific ban on fungi harvest from the SSSI on the Crown Lands of the New Forest.  In doing this we’ve sought to bring about best practice under existing laws, byelaws and guidance.  After careful consideration we decided that calling for an Epping Forest style ban was the most clear cut solution, with its obvious precedent.  We’re taking the precautionary principle that on a SSSI, especially one including fungi amongst its notified features, under heavy pressure from recreation and other use, that the fungi should be protected, part and parcel with the whole of this habitat.

The NFA campaigns for the habitat and heritage of the Forest.  In entering into this campaign we consulted with our own ecologists and local mycologists. We’ve consulted with and had support from the British Mycological Society, the Fungi Conservation Trust, Natural England, Buglife, Plantlife and the National Trust, the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust (the latter two had already banned fungi foraging on SSSI land they manage).  The fruiting bodies of the fungi are not merely food for other fauna, but are depended upon by at least 600 species of invertebrate using them as micro-habitats to fulfill their life cycles.

The New Forest Site of Special Scientific Interest is in one of the most densely populated National Parks, surrounded on many sides by conurbation with insufficient alternative greenspace, and mounting recreation pressure.   As open access land, it is easily accessible to all users, and an easy touch for volume foragers.  SSSI is a designation that confers habitat protection under UK law. The New Forest is also a Special Protection Area (SPA) and a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Natura 2000 designations or initiatives under EU law, and a National Nature Reserve.  The Natural History Museum picked the New Forest as one of two biodiverse rich sites on which to base their ongoing climate change study.  It is a gem, one of the crown jewels of natural biodiversity in Britain, Europe and the World.  We ask all to understand importance of this ecosystem and the need for its protection, and that they respect its protection and find their fungi elsewhere.

For Immediate Release

We will be examining and addressing some of the counterarguments and myths surrounding this policy and fungi conservation in “Look, Don’t Pick – The Issues”. (available soon)

Presentment: Latchmore Brook: Part 2: Wildlife, Materials and Beauty

By on 21/09/2016 in Habitat, News, Planning

In a feat of both irony, and good timing thematically, the presenter met the five minute limit for Presentments, and was cut short. The first part was an apology from the New Forest Association for not displaying our support for the Latchmore project “often enough, publicly enough, or possibly well enough.” allowing snide comments and poor treatment of the Verderers, Forestry Commission and National Park Authority to stand.

The second part shifts emphasis to addressing areas that concern all of us about the project, Wildlife, Material Delivery Routes and Beauty.

…I won’t make up for lost time now.  I have a critique of more than ten errors on just one of their webpages which I’ve sent separately to the Verderers (on our news page).  But I beg the courts indulgence to address a few points.  Amongst the more emotive subjects, the potential disturbance to and loss of wildlife in the implementation itself.  Of course this is of concern, but there’s a reason why we view the end-of-days prognostication of those opposed as baseless conjecture.

2119.  Two thousand One Hundred and Nineteen.  This is the non-exclusive number of completed River Restoration projects in the UK since 1994 listed in the database of the River Restoration Centre.   Some smaller, some larger: the Cumbria River Restoration Strategy (CRRS) a partnership project between Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Rivers Trusts of Eden, West Cumbria and South Cumbria won the 2016 UK River Prize. They restored 14 km of river across the three catchments to a more natural form.  Not all restore meanders, only 1593 had Habitat objectives, some were done for Flood Risk, Fisheries, etc. 120 are listed as a result of Community Demand.  But all would have had the issue of disturbance to wildlife.  Projects including hundreds of Rivers Trusts, Catchment Partnerships, private estates, the Royal Parks, the National Trust, amongst others.  When the RSPB, and the Wildlife Trusts, and their ecologists support the Latchmore Brook project and other Forest wetland restorations, they do so with their experience, including many projects on the land they manage.  If the consequences, in 22 years and 2119 projects, were as dire as the leaders of the opposition contend, I should think we’d have heard about it by now, or certainly their researches would have brought this to our attention.

We do all share concerns about the project.  The New Forest History and Archaeology Group have raised issues with the survey, we believe they are surmountable and encourage all interested parties to work towards a solution.

Movement of materials to the site may cause disturbance and inconvenience to those along the delivery routes.  I’ve seen and heard alarming figures, 70HGV movements a day or 44000 HGVs, which I’ve discovered to be ridiculously overblown.  Not that I blame anyone for getting this wrong as the planning documents do not lay out the information in a helpful way.  I’ve already had a private go at the FC and LUC over their need to provide concise and useful figures for the public to properly convey the size of the issue.  The route through Ogdens, for example, we’ve been told this will be used in three years of the project, which is worrying, but hazard a guess at how many days would be necessary for deliveries through Ogdens in 2017 – 6, 2018 – 1, that’s right in 2018 they only need to make approx 7 deliveries on that route that year, 2020 – 28, of course that will bear more discussion, but it brings perspective. For the entire project all routes all years combined there will be fewer than 10k HGV movements, fewer than 11k in the worst case scenario we’ve run.  I’ll be putting up our numbers on our newspage later today, available to all, even if you want to scare people with numbers at least you can use realistic figures.

Finally, many are rightfully concerned about the future beauty of the Latchmore Brook.  Walking along Latchmore Shade, you will clearly see the original meanders.  In some cases you will see this as gently undulating curves written as a gentle scar in the landscape, it is easy to imagine a pleasant stream flowing along this course.  Elsewhere the meanders have been eroded into unattractive ruts, and in other places the area between the current water course and the meanders become a quagmire when the drains rush water into the area, the flood in the now dysfunctional flood plain is partially contained by the meander, not allowing much onto the adjacent grazing.  Fixing this will not make the area any less beautiful.  I spoke of the prizewinning project in Cumbria, which we may begrudgingly agree is also an iconic landscape.  That project was twice the size of Latchmore.

Look at Warwickslade Cutting and Fletchers Thorns amongst many of the completed restorations which have bedded in, they look absolutely lovely now.  There are many to choose from, but don’t impatiently show up moments after the diggers left and expect an instantaneous transformation.  Give nature time to do its magic.  After all nature took its time creating those meanders before they were ruined.

— Brian Tarnoff, Chair, Habitat and Landscape Committee
New Forest Asssociation

While this second part was not read in the open court, the full presentment was distributed in written form to the Verderers, as well as the Annotated Fact Check of the Latchmore Crowdfunding Page.

Much of this half of the Presentment was repurposed in the Public Questions section of the subsequent National Park Authority meeting, with an emphasis on addressing the PR problem now faced by Wetland Restorations in the wake of the leaders of the opposition to Latchmore’s concerted campaign of misinformation, misrepresentation, hyperbole and pseudoscience.

Presentment: Latchmore Brook: Part 1: An Apology

By on 21/09/2016 in Habitat, News, Planning

As the Latchmore Brook planning application may be decided before the next month’s Verderers Court.  The NFA find that we owe everyone an apology.

We’ve never made a secret of our support for the Forestry Commission’s wetland restorations.  But clearly, in some areas, we haven’t made our case often enough, publicly enough, or possibly well enough.  For that we must apologize to the whole of the Forest.

We apologize to the Verderers, I know you don’t need anyone to leap to your defence, but you have been impugned, under the snide accusation that everyone involved in, or indeed supporting the project, would knowingly harm the Forest.  The Verderers who many of us regard as the conservative line in the sand, that we are so fortunate have powers granted by the New Forest Acts.  You have supported this project in the various forms its taken when it has come before you.

This is one of the Leaders of the opposition’s most poisonous assertions, that the process itself, is somehow tainted by a cosy “partnership”.  The National Park Authority, Verderers and Forestry Commission are only “partners” in the project inasmuch as they are the statutory bodies obviously required to be on the project board.  It only benefits the FC as they fulfil their legal obligation to respond to the Natural England condition assessment of the SSSI, and only benefits the Park as it successfully fulfils their statutory purposes “to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area”.  The NPA is represented on the board by their Chief Exec Alison Barnes.

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

We apologize to the Forestry Commission,  and other public servants that have had to bear the brunt of what many would call a hostile work environment.   I’ve heard hissing at Parish Council meetings.  I’ve seen ecologists aggressively berated at consultations and site visits, where they are merely doing their job and explaining, calmly, what the values of these projects are.  The NFA haven’t been able to be present at all occasions and have not intervened enough.  Not that I lay all bad behaviour at the feet of the Leaders of the opposition, but neither do they repudiate such behaviour.

We also apologize to the FC because while the NFA have campaigned for more monitoring built in to all these projects –  We didn’t insist enough to give everyone a larger more convincing body of evidence.

We apologize to the Friends of Latchmore.  Yes, we do. On one level we welcomed them, we disagreed with their conclusions, but a localized voice giving the Forestry Commission a hard time, could have been useful.  The NFA, covering more issues over the whole Forest, can’t be everywhere all the time.  But they are never sceptical enough with their own arguments, they don’t sort the wheat from the chaff, as a result we’ve heard a few valid points hidden amidst a white noise of hyperbole and pseudoscience.

But here’s where the NFA have done the leaders of the Friends of Latchmore and as a result many of their followers a true disservice.  We didn’t challenge them publicly often enough.  We thought there was no point in popping up doing tit for tat when the planning process would make the decision.  We limited speaking here at the Verderers Court mostly to key moments when the Verderers were to decide their views.  In some cases they may even have taken our silence for validation.

We’ve let them steal a march on us in the public perception, but in doing so they have spread an entrenched dogmatic view which stifles debate, because you can’t have a discussion where one side never concedes any of the many valid points that suggest that either this project is worthwhile, or that its challenges are proportionate.

I won’t make up for lost time now.  I have a critique of more than ten errors on just one of their webpages which I’ve sent separately to the Verderers (on our news page).  But I beg the courts indulgence to address a few points…..

— Brian Tarnoff, Chair, Habitat and Landscape Committee
New Forest Asssociation

In a feat of both irony, and good timing thematically, the presenter met the five minute limit for Presentments, and was cut short. The second part shifts emphasis to addressing areas that concern all of us about the project, Wildlife, Material Delivery Routes and Beauty.  The full presentment was distributed in written form to the Verderers, as well as the Annotated Fact Check of the Latchmore Crowdfunding Page.

The Presentment was preceded by a very short thank you to the Forestry Commission for their new Look, Don’t Pick Fungi policy.  We released a fuller response to the policy here.

NFA President’s Report 2015-16

By on 15/04/2016 in Habitat, News, Planning
We leave the last word before tomorrow’s Annual General Meeting to our esteemed President, Oliver Crosthwaite Eyre. He sets this year’s work against the backdrop of developments in conservation and planning on the national stage.

In last year’s report I mentioned the growing financial challenges that beset the Forest’s publicly funded bodies such as the Forestry Commission, Natural England and the National Park Authority. At that time we had yet to get through the general election and the future was shrouded in uncertainty. However, the election is now far behind us and in his public spending review statement before Christmas last year the Chancellor delighted conservationists by singling out England’s National Parks as organisations that would be protected from any government cuts for the next five years. Not only that, the existing grant would be increased each year by almost 2%. The only other organisation to receive this special treatment was the police force.

Whatever the Chancellor’s reasons were for this welcome decision, we must not squander our moment in the sun. We must not assume that the goodwill that seems to currently ooze out of Defra is something that will be either perpetuated or repeated, and all the Forest’s bodies must combine forces to extract the most that we can from this opportune climate.

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Liz Truss, is very keen to make some lasting decisions for conservation, and has commissioned a Plan for National Parks in England, and a brisk period of consultation has now started with a view to launching the plan later this spring. This is running parallel to the creation of a separate and broader 25-year conservation plan for the whole country. It is still very much on the drawing board, but at present its focus is, I am happy to report, on reinforcing the special status that places like the New Forest have as protected landscapes.

We must watch the process carefully, and ensure that the new plan avoids entering in to the territory of actively promoting tourism and ever more visitors to the Forest. We are the smallest of the country’s national parks, and yet we have the most visitors for our size by far. Indeed, when looking at the large centres of population that surround the Forest the term “besieged” could sensibly be used! However, if the new plan is properly written and intentioned it will, I hope, be good news for the Forest.

looking at the large centres of population that surround the Forest the term “besieged” could sensibly be used!

In the meantime the Council’s laudable efforts to influence the Forestry Commission in its decisions on how to control fungi picking continue. Prompted by the excellent public statements recently made by this Association, there is strong support for the view that the Commission should copy the bold action taken by the National Trust and ban all picking until it can be shown that no harm is being done by uncontrolled gathering of mushrooms in the Forest. This would follow the precautionary principle which is the conservationist’s touchstone, including (one would hope) that of Natural England as the Government’s advisors on such matters. It does seem to be totally illogical that the Commission’s byelaws strictly and quite rightly prohibit the unauthorised removal of any plants and trees from its land, which is enforced, and yet mushrooms are somehow not deemed to be worthy of the same protection.

The Council continues to very effectively monitor the constant flow of planning applications in the Forest, and selectively lends its support or objections for applications with great effect whenever necessary. This year sees a full blown review of existing planning policy. An in-depth consultation is underway with all concerned parties to ensure that any changes are properly thought through and supported.

Our Association is heavily involved in this process, and is keeping a very close eye on the flow of new national planning proposals that are coming from the Government, many of which are designed to encourage a rapid nationwide acceleration in the building of new houses. We need to ensure that the New Forest is exempt from those measures which would potentially damage the landscape and its special qualities. Nobody doubts the need for more housing in England, but we must continue where necessary to persuade Ministers that some of the new ideas are definitely not appropriate for highly sensitive and protected places like the Forest. The work continues.

As ever, on behalf of all the members of the Association, I would like to conclude my report by thanking the Council for its vigilance and hard work over the year.

— Oliver Crosthwaite Eyre, President, New Forest Association

NFA Planning & Transport 2015-16

By on 13/04/2016 in News, Planning


In anticipation of Saturday’s NFA AGM, we look back at this year’s work. In his annual report from our Planning & Transport Committee, Chair Graham Baker discusses the Government’s now constant shifting of planning goalposts, the threat of the rising property market to Commoning, and inadequate compensation for the thousands of homes planned for the Forest’s borders.

The concord with the National Park Authority has persisted and monitoring applications for development has become a reduced part of the committee’s job. Still we argue about fences, about contribution to affordable homes, about the size and bulk of replacement dwellings, but these are the arguments at the margin – the difference between a man with a job and a man with a passion.

In development control these days we are usually supporting the National Park Authority and are generally on the winning side. Supporting them against Parishes where valuable principles might be sacrificed for local convenience, against applicants wishing to misuse valuable back up pasture, against developers determined to try every avenue to gain a bigger house, against those seeking to overturn decisions at appeal and most of all supporting them in resisting Government attempts to relax the planning rules. Working with the National Park Authority and the Campaign for National Parks, we have succeeded in gaining exemption from many of these relaxations. But proposals come thick and fast; before the results of the last one on significant changes to national planning policy are known, two new consultations have been announced, both containing many dangerous proposals.

The more we succeed in keeping unwanted development at bay, the more attractive the area becomes as somewhere to live and the more house prices have risen. In November 2015, the average property in the National Park cost £531,162 that is 14.2 times the local average wage, a higher ratio even than London. If land-based occupations are to survive the next 25 years we must secure more homes for local people unable to afford market housing.

Driven by a Government determined to ever increase house numbers, our surrounding Planning Authorities have become the main threat to the Forest. Thousands of homes are planned south of Romsey, on the Waterside, at Fawley and East of Christchurch. Everyone recognises that each house built increases recreational pressure on the protected areas of the National Park and everyone agrees that the Authorities should compensate for the damage that it will do. But the compensation is inadequate, and as part of the revision of the New Forest National Park local plan, the New Forest Association will campaign for sensible mitigation contribution used for effective, long term measures.

Chairman – Graham Baker

The NFA’s Planning & Transport Committee does a huge volume of work, not just wading knowledgeably through planning applications which may be of concern, but increasingly, as the objectives of neighbouring Authorities force us to look strategically, they review development, green space provision, mitigation and compensation outside the Forest’s borders. Despite this daunting task, Graham signs off:

“The planning committee is in good heart and up to complement. Burley gives us cause for concern, and if there is someone from the village who would like simply to check planning applications each month for likely problems, I ask them to contact me.”

Join NFA in Summer Fun

By on 09/08/2011 in News

Want to find out more about the New Forest? If so then you’re invited to some free events organised by conservation and campaign body the New Forest Association this summer and autumn. All are welcome, including non-members.

  • On Wednesday August 17 Ann Biffin will lead a walk and talk on Eric Ashby’s Bench and Sumner’s finds. This walk will take in the wooden memorial bench dedicated to New Forest film maker and conservationist Eric Ashby and will also cover some of the topography, history, traditions and scenery narrated in Heywood Sumner’s famous Guide to the New Forest, published by Charles Brown and son of Ringwood over 80 years ago. The guide, published in 1923, is considered by some to be the best guide to the woods of the New Forest.

Anyone wishing to take part should meet at Fritham car park at 6pm.

  • On Tuesday September 6 you can join NFA Chairman Peter Roberts and his colleague Phil Marshall, Countryside Manager for the National Trust, for a walk and talk on Pylons and Plantations. This event explores the impact of plantations and pylons in the north of the Forest and the management of Forest heathland.

Meet at Turf Hill car park at 6pm.

The NFA will also be attending several Forest events this year for anyone who wants to find out more about Forest issues or the work of the association. These include the Frogham Fair on August 27, the Romsey Show on September 10, and the New Forest Festival on September 25.

“We’ve been around for 144 years but we’re not a bunch of old fuddy duddies,” said Peter Roberts, who took over as Chairman in May.

“We are very keen to reach out to people of all ages and to tell them more about our work and about the New Forest’s important ecology, biodiversity and heritage. There are some fascinating stories to tell. We want to help generate people’s excitement about the Forest and their enthusiasm for the special environment around them.

“We attracted a lot of interest from local people at the New Forest Show and it was our best Show yet. We hope as many people as possible will join us on some of these events both to enjoy the New Forest and to find out more about it.”

Further details about all these events, including locations, duration and what to wear can be found on the NFA website at http://www.newforestassociation.org/events.html.

Presentment to The Verderers: NFA Response to the Independent Panel on Forestry

By on 20/07/2011 in News

Presentment to The Court of Verderers.

Wednesday 20th July 2011
Peter Roberts. Chairman. New Forest Association.

The New Forest Association asks that the Verderers consider supporting the response of this Association when they respond to the Independent Panel on Forestry. Our submission is detailed so I will just highlight six points.

1 The New Forest Crown Estate should be kept intact because the back-up land and cottages are vital to commoning.

2 Remove intensive commercial forestry because the plantations sterilise bio-diversity. A return to broad leaved woodlands in some areas would reverse this. It would probably take 50-60 years to harvest existing plantations thereby allowing the timber extraction industry to adapt to the changes.

3 Replace Forestry Commission with landscape managers. It is difficult for the Commission to adhere to national policy whilst attempting to manage a unique area in an appropriate manner.

4 Retention of local expertise in any new body is vital because many Commission staff have great local knowledge.

5 The New Forest could be the basis of an Ecological Restoration Zone thereby fulfilling needs recognised in the Lawton report ‘Making Space for Nature’ and the recent Government White Paper.

6 Last but not least the retention of the New Forest Acts is of fundamental importance.

How the Forest is cared for matters more than who cares for it.

The full submission may be found on our website.

http://www.newforestassociation.org/NFA%20Response_to_the_Independent_Panel_on_Forestry.pdf.