(a) the interests of persons having rights in relation to or occupying the land – in particular the commoners. The 70 + right holders on Caldbeck Common have all been circulated with the proposal to renew the fencing consent on the 3 sites and no one has said the proposal is against their interests. There was an open meeting on the 1 March 2022 attended mainly by active graziers when the issue was raised and no adverse comment was made. The 3 sites fenced and the proposal to request permission to retain the fences for a further period is of no concern to the Caldbeck commoners because the sites are on the edges of the common and are less than 0.4 % of the total area of their common. Similarly no adverse comment has been made by Uldale Commoners whose area is very little affected.
(b) the interests of the neighbourhood. No adverse comment has been made by anyone in the parishes or on the Parish Councils concerned. A pre application consultation notice was put in both the Parish magazines for the sites concerned .
(c) the public interest which includes
(i) nature conservation. It is submitted that the fences improve nature conservation.
(ii) the conservation of the landscape. It is submitted the landscape is enhanced by the woodlands fenced off from the remainder of the common.
(iii) the protection of public rights of access – gates and stiles are provided allowing public access. One stile on the north side of Charleton Gill providing access will be replaced by a kissing gate at the request of one near neighbour who is a former grazier and right holder on the common, and who has stated she otherwise has no objection to the retention of the fences.
(iv) the protection of archaeological remains and features of historic interest. No archaeological remains or features of historic interest are known to be affected by any of the 3 sites
The comments arising on the pre consultation against the proposal are all made by bodies who have no direct involvement with either Caldbeck or Uldale Commons, save in an overarching manner so to speak. They are the Open Spaces Society the Friends of the Lake District and the Cumbria and Lakes Local Access Forum.
1. Length of temporary consent sought .
The present Secretary of State consents for each of the 3 sites expires in July 2022. The Lake District National Park Authority conducted its prior consultation on an application for a new 20 year consent. This was posted at www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/fences, and it linked the report by Natural England in support of the proposal dated 14th January 2022 which is sent with this application. The statutory consultees were directly alerted to the proposal.
The Open Spaces Society expressed the view that at best the new consent should be for 5 to 10 years.
The Friends of the Lake District charity appear to advocate a 5 year extension but advised they would ask PINS to refuse the application on the basis of the information provided on the pre consultation
The Cumbria and Lakes Joint Local Access Forum also advocated a consent for 5 years
In response to those representations made on the prior consultation the applicant has reduced the temporary consent period requested to 15 years.
Natural England commented prior to the decision to seek a 15 year consent, in answer to the suggestions that the consent be for as little as 5 years
Both Caldbeck and Uldale Common are currently in HLS agreements that expire in 2023. Options for the future are currently being considered by the commoners. Due to the agricultural transition process (change to the agricultural payment system following our exit from the EU) the options are complex and there are still considerable uncertainties around them. The options are:
a.Extend the HLS agreement (length of time dependent on future Ministerial decisions) until entry into appropriate Future Farming Scheme possible
b.Enter Countryside Stewardship (CSS) - ten year agreement from Jan 2024
c.Enter Future Farming Scheme agreement such as the Local Nature Recovery Scheme (LNRS) - expected to be a 10 year agreement available from 2024 (though no guarantee that all agreements will start immediately) or Landscape Recovery Scheme (LRS) – 20 year agreements, starting to be piloted from 2023. Full details of these schemes not yet known
Under (a) revenue funding would continue but there would be no additional capital payments available for the remainder of the agreement.
Under option (b) both capital and revenue payments for retaining and maintaining the exclosures would be available
Although full details of option (c) are not yet known, we would confidently expect both capital and revenue payments for high priority projects such as these exclosures to be available. Indeed, we would expect work such as this to be essential for the commons to be able to meet the requirements for entry into such schemes.
One of the reasons for applying for a 20 year permission to retain the fencing at this stage is because there will be a huge amount of preparatory work to be done if the commons are to enter into a CS, LNRS or LRS agreement. For CS, all permissions need to be in place before the agreement can commence. We expect that this requirement will to apply to LNRS. Therefore it is essential that any permission is long enough to cover the potential duration of any CS or LNRS agreement. If a short permission is given (say 5 years) then the commoners would need to reapply, possibly within the space of a year, for a longer term permission. If the commons decide to enter into a LRS agreement, then we would expect there to need to be a more radical re-appraisal of land management, including the future of these exclosures. It is important to remember that if permission is obtained for 20 years, this does not mean that the fences will necessarily remain in place for 20 years; if an alternative management solution is found (eg under the LRS) that delivers equivalent or better environmental benefits, then the fencing can be removed. Given that the land is owned by the Lake District National Park Authority and is within an SSSI, this gives a high level of confidence that the correct management will be implemented.
It is considered that 15 years would cover the potential life of the new environmental agreements which either common may enter into mentioned above.
The applicant comments that the Friends of the Lake District statement that “An application to extend the fence life after 5y would involve very little additional work above what has already been prepared” is simply incorrect. These applications take a considerable amount of time and expense, and a new application in 4 years is going to be no less time consuming than the present one.
2. What are the indicators of success for trees, woodland and ground flora which will determine the point that fences can be removed. Natural England state these are site specific and reply as under
Charleton Gill
Target Composition: Gill woodland/scrub (including juniper) with characteristic understorey. Some dry heath as understorey and on thin soils on steep slopes
Target Structure: The area fenced is essentially a linear feature within the much larger grazed common. The target is simply to have a belt of trees and scrub following the gill, with dry heath and other ground flora species that are able to naturally establish. This will provide shelter and food for insects and birds. Dense vegetation close to the ground is most effective at slowing the flow of water.
Long Term Management Requirements: the soils are mostly thin, with some rocky outcrops. Growing conditions are quite harsh. This is a narrow band of woodland/scrub in any case. Due to the unproductive vegetation, steep slopes and thin soils vulnerable to erosion, the reintroduction of grazing is not particularly recommended. Incorporation into a larger scrub or cattle-grazed wood pasture area could be considered if these ever look like becoming feasible options for the common.
Burblethwaite
Target Composition: Native trees and shrubs in a mosaic with marshy grassland with species such as rushes, marsh bedstraw, marsh thistle, ragged robin, marsh marigold
Target Structure: Mosaic of trees and shrubs with some open areas of long, flowery herbaceous vegetation to benefit a wide suite of birds and insects. Dense vegetation close to the ground is most effective at slowing the flow of water.
Long Term Management Requirements: The amount of very wet ground means that natural processes are likely to maintain a good mosaic of trees, shrubs and more open ground for a considerable period of time. However, this is the most productive of the 3 sites and the first that might benefit from some low intensity, shorty duration cattle grazing. If management of the common changes, it might be possible to incorporate this into a larger area managed as cattle-grazed wood-pasture. As above, the reintroduction of sheep grazing is not recommended as it would be likely to reduce plant species diversity and structure.
Branthwaite
Target Composition: Mosaic of mixed native trees and scrub (including juniper on thinner soils) with open habitats, especially open wetland area by river and open blanket bog on higher ground. Open habitats rich in flowering plants such as cross-leaved heath and heath spotted orchid.
Target Structure: Complex mosaic including trees, scrub, long, flowery herbaceous vegetation and characteristic blanket bog and wetland vegetation. This complex structure will be excellent for insects and for breeding and feeding birds. Dense vegetation close to the ground is most effective at slowing the flow of water.
Long Term Management Requirements: development of vegetation has been quite slow over the first 15 years and on the relatively unproductive soils present, is likely to remain so. Natural processes are likely to be such that high habitat and structural diversity is likely to be retained over much of the site for at least another decade and possibly indefinitely. Blanket bog does not usually require management as the wet, peaty conditions limit what can grow there. If after another decade, it is felt that the overall structure of the vegetation is becoming too dense then (once sufficient trees have reached a size to enable them to physically withstand the presence of livestock) it would be possible to reintroduce some low intensity grazing – ideally a few cattle for short periods of time. If management of the common changes, it might be possible to incorporate this into a larger area managed as cattle-grazed wood-pasture. The reintroduction of sheep grazing is not recommended as it would be likely to reduce plant species diversity and structure.
3. Rationale for retaining fences:
Natural England stated, before the decision to reduce the period sought to 15 years :
Although a few of the trees planted may now be large enough to withstand the reintroduction of sheep grazing, many are not and would be lost. In addition, we must consider the ground flora - the enclosures are allowing the development of a rich assemblage of ground flora. The investment in terms of funding and effort and nature recovery gains over the last 15 years would largely be wasted, if the fences were removed in 5 years-time. At this stage in development we feel that the fence is still required to safeguard and promote the regeneration of trees and ground flora that has already taken place.
Therefore we continue to advocate the need for the fences to remain for a further 20 years
4. Monitoring of sites.
The Lake District National Park have said "We are committed to conducting reviews of our tree enclosures at 5-yearly intervals to monitor growth and regeneration"
5. Who meets the cost and work of fence removal when the temporary consent expires (if not then again renewed) and the costs of the maintenance and repair and if need be replacement of the fences in the meantime? The Lake District National Park Authority have that responsibility as the landowner. Whether the LDNPA can reduce their liability or gain financial assistance to help meet that responsibility in the future depends upon what environmental agreement is entered into as mentioned in 2 above, and the outcome of negotiations between the LDNPA as landowner and the commoners as graziers for any such environmental agreement, but in the absence of either the LDNPA as landowner recognises it has the liability to remove unconsented fences and to repair and maintain consented fences
The area given in the 2008 temporary fencing consent for this site (being the above two areas together) was 5.07 hectares. It has now been resurveyed and measured, as it is and has been since 2008, to 5.63 hectares. The discrepancy may have arisen from the difficulty of fencing the site in 2008, because of the terrain or the need minimise visual impact.
The existing type is stock (horse) fencing (BS 1722 compliant) consisting of timber post, horse netting and a single barbed top wire, erected in straight lines between strainer posts. Strainer posts exist at each end of the fence and at each corner, turning points and where there is significant difference in gradient. The fence height is approximately 1.2 metres and the wire is galvanised to comply with BS4102.
The existing struts are at least 80mm (top diameter), and 1.9m long. The struts are notched into the straining post at an angle of no more than 45 degrees.
The intermediate posts are 65mm (top diameter) and 1.7m. long; spaced no further than 3.5m apart.
See question 18 for details of gates.
The consented area for this site in 2008 was 6.03 hectares. Again the fence as erected in 2008 may have been altered slightly from the planned fence line to avoid difficulties in terrain.
The existing type of fencing is sheep stock fencing (BS 1722 compliant) consisting of timber posts, sheep netting and a single barned top wire, and erected in straight lines between strainer posts. Strainer posts exist at each end of the fence and at each corner, turning points and where there is significant difference in gradient. All timber for fencing and gates are tantalised with an approved preservative. The fence height is approximately 1.2 metres and the wire is galvanised to comply with BS4102.
The existing struts are at least 80mm (top diameter), and 1.9m long. The struts are notched into the straining post at an angle of no more than 45 degrees.
The intermediate posts are 65mm (top diameter) and 1.7m. long; spaced no further than 3.5m apart.
See question 18 for details of gates.
The 2008 consented area for this site was 7.21 hectares. Once again the fence as erected in 2008 may have been altered slightly from the planned fence line to avoid difficulties in terrain.
The existing type of fencing is sheep stock fencing (erected in accordance with BS 1722) consisting of timber posts, sheep netting and a single barned top wire and erected in straight lines between strainer posts. Strainer posts exist at each end of the fence and at each corner, turning points and where there is significant difference in gradient. All timber for fencing and gates are tantalised with an approved preservative. The fence height is approximately 1.2 metres and the wire is galvanised to comply with BS4102.
The existing struts are at least 80mm (top diameter), and 1.9m long. The struts are notched into the straining post at an angle of no more than 45 degrees.
The intermediate posts are 65mm (top diameter) and 1.7m. long; spaced no further than 3.5m apart.
See question 18 for details of gates.
Pedestrian gates are 0.91m (3’) in length to allow access for the general public
Field gates vary between 2.4m (8’) and 3m (10’) in length to allow access for graziers to remove stock, maintenance machinery including quad bikes (erected in accordance with BS3470).
Stiles two step with support post
The gates and stile display discrete open access symbol signage.
All three sites are served by roads. The road for Charleton Gill is an un-metalled track, that for Burblethwaite is a metalled public road, and the road to Branthwaite is an unmetalled track classified as a public footpath. They are shown on the site plans and on the Map marked Q23 A.
There are small buildings on Caldbeck Common – see the map marked Q23 B. for the location of the 4 next mentioned.
(i) Lingy Hut maintained by the Bothy Association which is 2 miles from the nearest application site at Branthwaite shown edged red on map Q.23B
(ii) A former mining powder hut near Potts Gill which is 1 mile from the nearest application site at Branthwaite
(iii) A sandstone (which is out of character to the area) building marked on the plan as Water Electrical Building and now owned by United Utilities which is 100 metres from the nearest application site at Branthwaite
(iv) A reservoir storage tank marked as Reservoir Intake which is 300 metres from the nearest application site at Branthwaite
Not shown on the map marked Q.23B is a former Joiners Shop on Caldbeck Common now used by Men in Sheds group in the centre of Caldbeck by the village pond which is over 2 miles from the nearest application site at Branthwaite.
See the map marked Q.23A for the position of other fenced areas with Secretary of State consent namely;
