MANAGEMENT INVASIVE SPECIES


cutting with a chainsaw, his young assistant, Rachel Bell. Given the scale of the rhododendron and laurel at the outset, its elimination involved digging out the roots and burning each plant: merely cutting back would have served no lasting purpose. Rachel cleared the way, where necessary by hand cutting obstructive birch, permitting Ian to get his excavator on site to dig and tear out the evergreens. To gain access on the steep slope involved driving a new ride half way up the bank. Some work had to be done by hand, for example when a badger sett was revealed. Follow-up chemical treatment will be necessary in the next two years, to curb re-growth from remaining roots and seed remaining in the soil: the Forestry Commission grant provides a contribution to this further work. It all took a long time. Work which had been scheduled to start in November 2012 was deferred several times because of the wet ground conditions, unsuited to the use of heavy machinery. Other commitments meant the excavator had sometimes to be moved to other sites and tasks, delaying completion until October 2013. Having an excavator on site also tempted us to extend the job specification. Rides were widened, new glades opened, fallen trees lifted from the river and a massive fallen oak limb located to discourage unauthorised vehicular


BUILDINGS PLANNING Battle of Roundwyke Maureen Chaffe recounts the horror of dealing with planners


Robert's wife Janice on a ride beside one of the areas of cleared woodland


access. Each of these tasks was willingly and skilfully undertaken. What we really appreciated was the complete sympathy with our objectives shown by both Allan and Ian. We had confidence in any on-the-spot decisions they were called upon to make. Careful attention was given to the choice of burn sites and the state in which the ground was finally left.


Lessons learnt Can we venture to offer any lessons, on the basis of our experience? 1. Don’t be discouraged by seemingly overwhelming


obstacles. Have the vision to see what could be achieved and see it through with determination. There is sympathetic support out there to draw upon. 2. Set & communicate clear aims. 3. Seek out a sympathetic source of guidance - someone who knows the FC people and system and, above all, someone who has knowledge of and an established relationship with good contractors. 4. Make use of the Forestry Commission grant scheme: it can make all the difference and fully repays tolerance of the inevitable bureaucracy, eg. registration with


the Rural Land Registry. 5. Set a realistic budget and stick to it. There may be offsetting income from timber sales. 6. Make sure the contractor understands the scope and limits of the engagement and any necessary or desired constraints, but then trust him (with reasonable surveillance) to apply his skills to the best of his ability. It paid off for us. 7. Provide for any necessary follow-up action.


Contacts Allan Lang Forestry, 01428 751321; Ian Hampshire, 07860 383369.


shed and wonder how he manages to deal with his local Planning Department. One thing for sure is that he does not live in the Chichester District Council (CDC) Planning area. My fellow woodland owners


I Foxgloves appearing in the cleared area (left) and a map of the woods 00 Smallwoods New Year 2014 www.smallwoods.org.uk


and I have been engaged in a constant battle with CDC since we purchased our land more than two years ago. We collectively own Roundwyke Copse an area of mixed woodland north of Petworth, West Sussex. It started with a threat of enforcement action against three sides of plywood around a hole in the ground used as a composting toilet. The planners told us that it needed and application for Prior Approval but if we submitted one it would be refused. The next problem came when they decided that a campfire site used for heating water for drinks, burning brashings and as a lunchtime rest area showed signs of encampment which also required planning permission. Another threat of enforcement


www.smallwoods.org.uk


think I may be suffering from shed envy! I see Kevin McCloud on the television living it up in his man-made


action. We had laid a base for a shed which we thought was permitted development but once told this was not the case ceased all works. One shed was finally given consent after eight months and being rejected twice. CDC then decided that we were


all a threat to the woods. A site inspection revealed that small temporary shelters erected deep in the woods to cover tools and logs were not acceptable nor was any form of recreation such as rope swings for the kids to play on while we are working. One owner has teenagers who play at soldiers on his plot while he works. They shoot paint pellets at targets. This is deemed to be paintballing and enforcement action was threatened. We are all reasonable law- abiding people so we removed everything that the planners objected to and provided them with woodland management plans to prove our intentions. The result of this was the serving of an Article 4 Direction on the land which removed the rights of all the owners to erect any structure on their land, even a shelter over a log pile or carry out


works to repair the rides, without full planning permission and also requires them to submit a full planning application to sleep for one night in the woods. All this on land that has no public access, water or power.


Costs of planning A planning application costs the local taxpayers over £600 to administer. It will have to be advertised and consulted upon and will take up to eight weeks to determine. In these times of austerity this does not seem a good use of taxpayers' money. The problem it seems to all of us is that the planners do not recognise the changing way that woodlands are managed. Part 7 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 gives the planning authority all the powers its needs to control development within forestry operations. However they feel threatened by this new breed of what they term ‘hobby foresters’ and are convinced that we will somehow invade the land if they do not control us. We have even been told by a planning


officer that woodlands don’t need management and that he would prefer to see no activity on the land at all. Even providing evidence of grants obtained to carry out improvements does not persuade them that we have honest intentions.


The upshot of all this is that


the woods have gone largely unmanaged for another year because we have all lost heart. We bought our woods because all of us have a genuine wish to improve them and return them to well-managed wildlife-friendly places, but the hassle takes all the fun out of it. If small pieces of woodland


are to be managed in the future, planning control needs to be tempered by some old-fashioned trust in people and use of the existing laws in a way that encourages responsible ownership and stewardship of the land instead of this heavy-handed, expensive and discouraging approach.


Details Do email Phil Tidey at philtidey@smallwoods.org.uk if you've had planning experiences other members might value.


New Year 2014 Smallwoods 17


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15