The decision by PINS to exclude equestrians by the provision of pedestrian only gates only goes to show how much collusion is being carried on behind closed doors in the rush to get hold of EU stewardship and meet self imposed conservation targets and objectives at the cost of existing public access rights

Says Bob Milton

It is my interpretation that the implication of these changes is that grazing of lowland heath is the de facto norm and it up to the landowner or land manger to supply any alternative management regime and supporting evidence that it is sufficient to meet the requirements of NE.

This reinforces the present regime of lowland heath fencing and grazing whether or not there is any scientific evidence to support the grazing as against any other regime.

The way the changes have been phrased is the complete opposite of the CAP requirements as per the Waddensee case where the onus is on NE to provide the evidence that their requirements are evidentially sound

Yet again there is no reference to existing public use by right or as of right. So we continue to be fighting a loosing battle with NE to have user taken seriously. This is especially as the powers being used by NE do not apply to existing rights whether through s193 or HA1980 for example.

The example of the Hednesford common [s193] decision by PINS to exclude equestrians by the provision of pedestrian only gates only goes to show how much collusion is being carried on behind closed doors in the rush to get hold of EU stewardship and meet self imposed conservation targets and objectives at the cost of existing public access rights. No evidence has been provided by NE that the stewardship imposed lowland heath grazing regime either works or has no displacement effect.

Info on the Fencing decision at Hednesford Common