PART ONE

"It would be a useful exercise ... to assess exactly what NE has done for equestrians."

Says Bob Milton

I do not seem to have received a reasoned reply to the charges and issues in this email. The assessments needed under the EQA2010 apply equally to those under the EU convention of Human Rights as incorporated in the Human Rights Act. You will be aware that the Habitat Directive does not over rule the EU convention and the discrimination felt be equestrians in the headlong self willed self benefiting scramble by NE for EU CAP pillar II money and targets.

It would be a useful exercise to balance this charge to assess exactly what NE has done for equestrians. We know that a few permissive access routes have been agreed as part of stewardship but that has now been withdrawn as an integral part of the new schemes and applied equally to pedestrians and cyclists so was not equestrian specific. Existing public access does not feature in the new stewardship regime except to act against it even to the extent of seeking if necessary primary legislation to remove it as set out in the 2005 NE’s Thames Basin Heaths SPA access report which was incorporated into the TBH SPA delivery plan.

I look forward to hearing from NE asap as there other outstanding issues in the same context which need to be addressed as a matter of urgency

PART TWO

- NE in its rush to meet targets for SSSIs rides rush shod over existing public access and PINS is bending over backwards to facilitate the enclosure of the last remaining open lands especially in the lowlands

- The issue of fraud by the RPA in respect to the single farm payment for grazing licences is now coming to a head

- A worrying new example of what I would consider abuse of power is the use by land managers, who have with the aid of NE and Defra/Pins enclosed common land for extensive grazing

Says Bob Milton

It seems that others also react in the same way as I and many like me do. NE in its rush to meet targets for SSSIs rides rush shod over existing public access and PINS is bending over backwards to facilitate the enclosure of the last remaining open lands especially in the lowlands; all this at great cost to the exchequer with no cost benefit analysis or evidence against the alternatives.

The issue of fraud by the RPA in respect to the single farm payment for grazing licences is now coming to a head as the RPA has by its actions refused to respond to inquiries under EIR2002 or FOI. The same but to NE in respect to payments for statutory duty under stewardship also applies in conjunction with payments made for fencing and gates on land that already has public access rights eg public highways [vehicular and rights of way] and s193 commons which by its own admission NE cannot pay for with CAP Pillar II money.

A worrying new example of what I would consider abuse of power is the use by land managers, who have with the aid of NE and Defra/Pins enclosed common land for extensive grazing such as Ashdown Forest, of the exemption rule [10%/10ha] to introduce focused intense grazing within the extensive grazing enclosures. Surely this is an admission that extensive grazing does not work. The are many examples where this can be seen but has been ignored for years by NE officers because in my opinion there has never been any need to regularly assess the effectiveness of stewardship agreements but is obvious to those of us who actually visit these enclosed but once open commons. A knock on effect of the paddockisation of the commons is that the areas outside of the fencing are not treated as part of the citation so that they are just used as extra large hedges to enclose further the common and prevent public access by doing no management in respect to the dominant tenement for which the land is usually held which is public access.

It is interesting to note in respect to the recent Chobham common decision that the result of a similar consent on Hazeley Heath, but that time it was for a trial, is that users both pedestrian and equestrian have elected not to enter the enclosures but have worn a route over the common around the outside of the temporary [6monthly for five years] fencing. This is an example of first stage displacement. Further examples do exist across the country from the death of a driver at Ashdown forest due to displacement caused by the introduction of two self closing gates to the reported 50% displacement of liveries in the Headley Heath area and the lack of consideration of those with protected characteristics prior to agreements or consents being made.

I am of the opinion that the NE on size fits all bio diversity and conservation creed must change and NE must give equal weight to its whole remit one of which is to promote public access and to act lawfully which is not to discriminate against existing public access rights.