Consultation Meeting and further options

[Tim Andrew]

After attending the Brill Common Consultation meeting and talking to a few people I'd like to air my thoughts on grazing, fencing and maintenance etc

1. None of the options offered in the consultation document are a complete solution and would involve substantial, perpetual volunteer effort even with fencing (although clearly less than at present).

2. Option D of mowing is the only option that covers the Windmill and area of North Hills adjoining the road, but hardly anyone thinks that mowing is a good option and machinery won't be able to handle the steep slopes around the windmill.

3. No-one really wants fencing, even the Parish Council, if it can be avoided (specifically Peter Jones went on record as being against fencing in principle)

4. None of the options in the consultation document looked at grazing the whole Common.

5. No list of grazing rights exists. What expressions of interest are there? Do you need official permission/rights to graze?

6. Someone proposed haha's as an alternative to fencing, which is an interesting idea...but maybe this is equally inhibiting to roaming?

7. There was a hearty round of spontaneous applause when it was suggested that the two volunteer groups work more closely together. I'm skirting this issue below, as both groups are working constructively towards similar goals; ie the maintenance of our beautiful and wonderful Common.

------------------------------

Here's a reminder of the Consultation Document Options:
Option A: To revert to the situation prior to the grazing project with the Common managed by work groups of the Common Conservation Team.

Comment: Before the temporary cattle grazing, it looks like volunteers were fighting a losing battle with just too much to tackle.

Option B: To continue indefinitely with the present temporary grazing arrangements plus work by the Common Conservation Team

Comment: This relies on the goodwill and effort of volunteers. Is it sustainable? The current arrangement with electric fencing is not favoured as a long term solution by current grazers Roger and Pat Stone. They are only prepared to continue with permanent fencing so this option is a non-starter.

Option C: To institute a managed grazing regime

Comment: This is clearly being hailed as the only viable solution. This involves permanent fencing and possibly some cattle grids. It may end up being the only solution, and we will have to swallow the imposition of permanent fencing and grids. Gulp!

Option D: To commission grass cutting

Comment: Do we want a park or a common? The proposal is to mow it only every other year, so most of the time it will be impenetrable grass, nettles and a biodiversity disaster?

------------------------------

Comment: Option C is clearly the favoured option as the other three have serious flaws. It all hinges on farmers actually wanting to graze; has this been ascertained? If none can be found, we end up with the worst of both worlds. Maybe the BPC would have to actually own the sheep/cattle in this case?

I've enjoyed seeing the Dexter's grazing and think there has been a real benefit in having them there. I'm worried that Pat And Roger Stone's and others huge efforts to organise, manage, move fencing and cattle cannot be sustained, and should they cease grazing, that no-one will step in to replace them.
 


my proposed options
Option E:  Return to full grazing of the common by subsidised shepherding

( I am not a farmer so please feel free to comment on the feasibility of this!)
Proposal: Subsidise farmers to return sheep to the common (this may be cheaper overall than the other options). Sheep only need to graze the Common for a few months of the year to be effective so there are no fulltime staff costs. Maybe trainee farmers could cut their teeth on work-placement or apprenticeship basis ( and grants may be available?). At peak visitor times sheep can be kept away from the Windmill area or moved to nearby fenced areas such as The Lawns. Sheep will inevitably occasionally wander on to the road. I can't remember any incidents of this being a major problem though, and it acted as a natural traffic calmer.  Sheep (unlike cattle) if hit by cars, are not big enough to be life threatening to drivers. Streetwise sheep become used to traffic and even dogs. Many of you will have visited UK areas where sheep roam without problems. It's only on busy main roads or where sheep have got stuck the wrong side of fencing or dry stone walls that they panic and run. Maybe the 30mph speed limit could be moved down to near the Pink Houses/ junction of Chapmans Lane? Dog owners are responsible for the actions of their dogs. Dog chasing of sheep happens whether there is fencing or not. The presence of a part-time shepherd would be a useful eye on the Common.


Option F:  Return to full grazing of the common with cattle grids.

Proposal: If shepherding in option E is a non-starter then maybe look at the cattle grid solution again (although the cost and paperwork are high). This was proposed around 9 years ago. It was not popular with some because of legitimate noise concerns as cattle grids able to take the weight of HGVs would have to be installed. In a "referendum"  59% voted FOR the option of cattle grids. This result was not enacted upon. The controversial grids were up by the edge of the village buildings. I wonder if these weren't unnecessary. Would it not be sufficient to install grids at the lower end of Tram Hill and west/below the windmill. The sheep occasionally wandered up Windmill St but apart from eating a few flowers were not an issue and shooed back.


Why these extra options? Because instinctively no-one wants fencing on the Common. It changes the nature of the Common, discouraging free access and giving an impression that it's a field primarily for grazing and that other activities are secondary. Grazing is a means of controlling grassland and avoiding a return to scrub. Even the current temporary electric fencing inhibits free roaming. The real danger is that fencing is a one way street, and that once it is there it will be forever deemed as rightfully there. Thereafter additional fencing will no doubt creep in to further extend the practicality of grazing.


These comments are posted here to air my personal opinion, and to encourage constructive discussion, with the aim of helping the future of the Common. I'd like to thank everyone for their persistent time, effort, and enthusiasm for the Common.

[Tim Andrew]

The real danger is that fencing is a one way street, and that once it is there it will be forever deemed as rightfully there. Thereafter additional fencing will no doubt creep in to further extend the practicality of grazing.

FYI - Since my comment that the Consultation Document did not contain any options for completely grazing the common, it has been pointed out to me that the fencing options are flexible and subject to revision as you might expect as this is a proposal/discussion document. There are two fencing options on the plan but there has also been a proposal for much more extensive fencing (see rough idea: blue lines on plan).

[Tim Andrew]

No sooner had I posted the last message; a rather more detailed plan dropped through my letterbox, and has no doubt been circulated around the whole village!


[ No need to publish it here as it is very close to the plan in my previous message (from the public Consultation Document), and would no doubt infringe copyright laws which this website respects.]

[Jon Vaile]

No sooner had I posted the last message; a rather more detailed plan dropped through my letterbox, and has no doubt been circulated around the whole village!

Seen it also.
Firstly, I should state that I am not a member of this new organisation called 'FOBC', the Common Management Team or the Parish Council. Just a humble resident looking for something to be done to return the Common to its former glory through grazing. Cattle first to deal with the thick sward followed by sheep as the long term solution. 

What a shame that the author/s of this 'Common Consultation Document' choose to remain anonymous. I don't see how you can demonstrate such an impassioned plea without being prepared to put your name to the document. I remain to be convinced about community involvement as a long term viable solution. People come and go, pass away, stand down etc. Just look at the various vacancies in the Bernwode News for volunteers required ! Looking after livestock is a full time commitment and best left to professionals in my view.   

Rather than push the burden back onto the Parish Council, I would like to hear how these community involvement proposals might work from the author/s of this document so I can make a more informed decision.

To conclude - I'm pro-grazing whatever form that takes. I'm anti-doing nothing ! and dragging this consultation process on any longer than necessary or there will not be a Common for the benefit of me let alone future generations. I voted for the parish councillors and happy to let them make decisions for the benefit of us all. If people don't like that, vote them off at the next election or better still - stand up and be counted.

   



 
 
   

[Tim Andrew]

Seems like there are quite a few people against the fencing if the latest circular leaflet is typical. No longer a case of sticking your head above the parapet, fence or haha....