Kingwood Common Preservation Group

Formed in October 2009 by local people and users of the common to protect the common and fight the proproposed enclosure

LATEST NEWS:   THE CONSERVATORS HAVE DECIDED TO GO AHEAD WITH THE PLANS TO INTRODUCE CATTLE AND FENCE THE COMMON. WE BELIEVE THEY HAVE NOT LISTENED TO US, SET OUT WITH THE AGENDA OF INTRODUCING CATTLE AND NOT FULLY CONSIDERED WHAT WE BELIEVE ARE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES, THAT THE PROPOSAL IS STILL TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. THEREFORE WE ARE CONTINUING WITH OUR CAMPAIGN, HAVE SOUGHT LEGAL ADVICE AND WILL BE LETTING OUR MEMBERS KNOW HOW THEY CAN SUPPORT US IN DUE COURSE.

A copy of the application can be found here: http://www.easy-share.com/1909961656/NDCC Application.pdf

* The application is based on a known false premise, that Kingwood is remnant heath-land.

* The Conservators should be conserving not only the biodiversity but also the cultural heritage of the site and this proposal will destroy both.

* There is no target for heathland management or restoration in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan for Oxfordshire.

* The site contains very large amounts of archaeology of all periods and especially World War II, both on the surface and below ground.
* the lack of evidence of a comprehensive survey of the value of the woodland ecology of the common, and the threats to it from grazing

* The area designated for the cattle contains a very large number of man-holes and other hazardous objects that will pose a serious risk to cattle.
* Objectors to schemes for heathland restoration and management are often dismissed as people who object to change. If this is so, then humility is required of the Conservators, and their advisors in the conservation industry - Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust (BBOWT) - since it is they that seek to turn back the clock and overturn the changes that wild nature has brought at Kingwood Common. Their assumption is that their choice of land cover, based on their chosen priorities, should have pre-eminence, but where is the justification?

* The consultation process was flawed from the start, ……….by Berkshire Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust (BBOWT) whose sole intention was to push this proposal through.

* Throughout its history it has been known to be woodlands of one sort or another. This is also confirmed by the presence of ancient woodland indicator plants at Kingwood including wood anemone, wood spurge, dog’s mercury, bluebells, lords and ladies, celandine, wood sedge, honeysuckle, and many mosses and liverworts, all of which are indicative of an ancient woodland ecology rather than open heath.

* Photographic records show that Kingwood is littered with the remains of the WW II structures, some of which are broken reinforced concrete components with exposed metalwork and sharp ends, a very large number of man-holes, some of which are open with no covers, as well as sections that could well be part of underground rooms, pipe etc. All of which should be both recorded, and surely if cattle were to graze safely on the site be made safe.

* Just to the west of the war agricultural attempt lies the remains of the camps sewage treatment works and its network of clay pipes for the dispersal of the treated liquid effluent in surface clay pipes. These pipes radiate in a spider-web fashion across Kingwood, their location has not been recorded and as they are a surface feature (covered in a little soil or mortar) they are both a trip hazard to animals when intact and a much greater risk when broken. They are fragile and would be damaged by mechanical vehicles.

* The area of Kingwood should have a complete Environmental Impact Assessment under PPS 5.

* BBOWT officer approached us and asked us to remove anything that was contrary to their cause of cattle on the Kingwood. It is therefore, to me very clear that BBOWT had no other intention other than applying for cattle to be grazed on Kingwood.

* It is my opinion that this proposal is based on a known false premise. Kingwood never was remnant open heath land but always has been wooded to some degree, ranging from managed woodland in its early history to scrub in its later history.

* the lack of evidence of soil mapping across the common

* the lack of evidence that nationally available guidance on the management of woodland glades and rides has been sought

* the lack of evidence that nationally available guidance on the management of bracken has been sought

* the lack of consideration of the availability of woodland management grants

* the failure of the Nettlebed and District Commons Conservators to ensure that the ‘golden rules’ from the guidance contained in ‘A Common Purpose: a guide to agreeing management on common land’ have been made use of.

* There is no statutory designation of heathland on Kingwood Common.

* There is no Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) Priority Habitat for heathland shown for Kingwood Common on ‘Nature on the Map’, Natural England’s interactive mapping website.

* The glades were hacked out of the woodland only 15 years ago by a volunteer conservation team. It has been observed that natural heather regeneration in old heathland sites drops with each year of afforestation, and reaches zero potential after 40 years of woodland cover.

* The geological variations across the site are very large and have not been mapped and therefore the impact of the geology cannot be taken in to consideration, although there is archaeological evidence to suggest that the proposed conversion to heath-land will fail.

* Claims for the likelihood of these small areas of heather isolated within the woodland being recolonized with BAP priority species for lowland heath are overstated, as is particularly the suggestion in the same leaflet produced by BBOWT that nightjar and Dartford warbler would breed there. The emphasis on heather at Kingwood Common is perhaps misguided as a recent research report from Natural England (NERR024) that looked at the niche requirements for BAP priority species for lowland heath found only 9% actually had a specific reliance on heather.

* The glades at Kingwood Common appear amateurish in their attempt to create the range of structure that could provide a mosaic of dynamic, resource-rich habitats. There is little evidence that anyone associated with their management has been informed by the guidance available from the Forestry Commission on ‘Managing woodland open space for Wildlife’ (Operations Note 011).
o There is little evidence from the various Project Updates that the Nettlebed Commons Project sought informed guidance on the control of bracken in the glades, ………. Moreover, the timing of the proposed periods of cattle grazing would tend to suggest that it will play little role in bracken control.

* It is perhaps a measure of the conservation industry’s ability to action their own agenda that Kingwood Common was designated a County Wildlife Site in 2005 on the basis that the "mixture of heathland and woodland on Kingwood Common represents an important area for wildlife". It appears that this invention of remnant heathland on Kingwood Common has over-shadowed any importance that the woodland itself has for wildlife. BBOWT play a key role in the Oxfordshire Wildlife Sites Project that designates County Wildlife Sites.

* The woodland on Kingwood Common is mapped in the National Inventory of Woodland and Trees. Since there is ancient woodland enveloping three sides of Kingwood Common (Neals/Charterfield Woods), the woodland on the Common thus serves as a strategic link for a range of wildlife between bands of these ancient woodlands. This has importance as the Oxfordshire LBAP has a Woodland Action Plan in which ancient woodlands are valued, and there are targets for maintaining and expanding native woodland.

* There is a very low incidence of non-native trees in the woodland on Kingwood Common. This is a virtue when many of our ancient woodlands have over time had non-native trees planted into them. It also has the presence of many native woodland specialist plants in large numbers (un-surveyed or un-named in previous management proposals for Kingwood Common, or on the Conservators website), such as wood anemone, wood spurge, dog’s mercury, bluebells, lords and ladies, celandine, wood sedge, honeysuckle, and many mosses and liverworts, all of which indicates a successfully developing woodland ecology. The presence of traveller’s joy (old man’s beard), combined with a registered commons right to remove chalk - indicates that not all the woodland is on acidic soil, and there must be some alkaline areas as well where the underlying chalk expresses itself. Heather native to the UK will not grow unless on acidic soil, and it cannot be certain that the created glades are all in areas of this soil type, as could be indicated by its apparent absence in some glade areas.

* In effect, the Nettlebed Commons Project is about grazing a woodland, an undeclared outcome of the proposal, and putting at risk that woodland diversity noted in the UKBAP .There is no evidence that the Nettlebed Commons Project has surveyed the woodland on Kingwood Common adequately such that it would be able to make an environmental impact assessment of the effect of grazing on the woodland species. Best practice requires that an assessment be made as the outcomes of grazing are unpredictable and should be monitored so that grazing can be removed to prevent further damage. Thus the Forestry Commission guidance has this to say about grazing woodland (Information Note 28):

"Currently the use of domestic stock to enhance/restore habitats is mainly limited to of domestic stock in woodlands"open heath and grassland areas. Few sites have investigated or monitored the use

* It recommends that formal trials should be initiated to consider the impacts of grazing and trampling on sensitive plant communities, and on invertebrate, bird and small mammal populations – base mapping these species and monitoring yearly. Clearly this has not been done, and there is no commitment to adequate monitoring.

* There is an alternative to enfencing and grazing the woodland on Kingwood Common, based on the the Forestry Commission’s England Woodland Grant Scheme. This has re-opened for new business in May, and all English Woodland Grant Scheme grants are open for new applications.