Hazeley Heath Consultative Group 12/01/2016
Victoria Hall, Hartley Wintney
Present: Leigh Wallace (CHAIR) (Hart DC), Jane Wright (Natural England), David
Sexton (Mattingley Parish), Julian Bishop (Commoners), Therese Abbott (Easement
holders), John Collman, Cathy Roberts (HW Parish), Aimee Matthews (HW Parish),
Mike Coates (RSPB), Phil Maund (SECRETARY) (Hart DC)
1. Apologies and introductions.
Lindsay Mackay was unable to attend.
2. Notes from previous meeting.
Notes were considered and approved.
3. Matters arising.
There was a discussion over the dissemination of meeting notes. DS is trying to
merge Mattingley Matters with the Whitewater Churches newsletter, due to costs.
The notes are currently going on the Hart website.
A reported area of landfill where glass is emerging was discussed. A ranger has
moved some local soil to cap the landfill. The area has also been litter picked. This is
only an interim measure, will be monitored. Potentially some more permanent
ground reinforcement could be considered.
The issue of the landfill area being listed as heathland on the HLS scheme was raised.
It was confirmed that this is not the case, so the matter is considered resolved.
4. Winter works.
LW:



MC:



Hart had commissioned large scale scrub clearance in the dell and it was
agreed that this work was neat and tidy.
Ongoing scattered scrub bashing with volunteers
Wooden revetments in the layby bund are being replaced and the pot holes
filled in late February-March. Contractors should give 2 weeks’ notice so that
residents are aware of layby closure in good time. LW will forward notice
information to CR and AM when it is available. ACTION LW
Ongoing RSPB volunteer parties have been working on degenerate gorse
stands, which hopefully will return as younger gorse. Some mechanical cutting
has also been carried out.
Fire breaks have been mown.
Contractors near Wedgewood/Purdies have undertaken scrub clearance.


There is an issue with the power line at Purdies relating to the timber
harvesters/felling operations. Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) gave the
wrong date for power shut-down, therefore felling contractors were not able
to proceed at planned time. Discussions are ongoing with SSE to secure a
power shut-down date so felling can commence. DS suggested next Tuesday
(19th), as apparently a local shutdown is planned, and MC will consult SSE to
confirm and to see if the contractors can coincide with this.
A contractor is due to bring in a 360 on Wednesday the 13th of January to
level off the track at Hazeley Court and remove brash from last year’s felling.
CR enquired about the ongoing bridleway issue at Crabtree Lodge (CL). MC is
awaiting a full response from CL. It is understood that they do not want the
bridleway on their land. The solution is to potentially create a new track parallel to
theirs (approximately 10m away) and it is hoped that the public footpath can be
upgraded at the same time. Other route designations are held up by the CL issue,
because Hampshire Council want to designate all routes at the same time (due to
legal fees/procedures). MC has agreed to forward the contact email address for CL
to JB. ACTION MC
5. Public consultation.
LW: Background papers and leaflets have all gone out to properties surrounding the
heath. Footprint Ecology (FE) have written to local and national organisations. On
site posters advertising the drop in day were checked/replaced as required.
Questionnaire on HDC website – surprisingly large number of people using it prior
to Christmas, which is promising.
Drop in day this Saturday (16th) – opportunity for the public to ask questions, look at
maps, do the questionnaire. There will also be a guided walk (6th February) on site to
discuss the consultation. FE will produce a report (required before end of financial
year – hopefully mid-March) of consultation outcomes including management
recommendations, which will be circulated amongst this group. The report will be as
a pdf/word document which can be printed/circulated online. After the report, the
second stage of consultation will begin (how to apply recommendations to
management).
JC asked what the expectations were of Saturday. LW said that it was an
opportunity to address questions, issues, etc. JC suggested that people may want
specifics at this stage. LW responded that we can explain the options for managing
heathland, including pros and cons. The guided walk will be useful for this, to show
specific management practices in context. MC added that we are deliberately not
covering recommendations at this stage, they will be covered at the second stage.
JW concluded that we need to provide options and suggestions, but make clear that
no decisions have been made at this stage.
LW hopeful for a good attendance on Saturday. MC suggested that those present
encourage as many people/stakeholders as possible to attend.
JW asked whether posters were up, advertising the event. LW responded that there
are posters all over the village and on the heath. They also went out in Contact
magazine.
AM asked if there is an electronic version of poster. LW has offered to pass on an
electronic copy to AM and JW.
JC wanted to know exactly where the event was taking place. MC responded that
the event is in The Edward Hall (Victoria Hall, Hartley Wintney). It will be
signposted on the day. CR proposed that the Lady K hall may be more suitable due
to ease of access and visibility, MC will check to see if it is available. Otherwise, the
Edward Hall is confirmed.
6. Any other business.
LW and MC have a site visit on Friday (15th) with Thames Basin Heaths Strategic
Access Management and Monitoring Group (TBHSAMM). TBHSAMM is part of the
Thames Basin Heaths initiative. Developer contributions are being used to provide
for wardening services (administered by Natural England) in the form of SAMM
wardens. These will be providing extra eyes and ears on the ground on the heaths.
They will be separately branded. They will be chatting to the public about the site, its
designation and encouraging site usage and behaviour sensitive to the conservation
of the site.
DS enquired about the Bramshill development. He commented that the planning
application for the lodge houses is expected to change. City and Country want to
widen the access road and put passing places in. MC said that this is allowed, as the
deed of grant was passed, therefore they are entitled to widen it to around 15ft.
However, they still need consent due to the site designations. MC continued that
there are concerns over the lodge houses being converted via large extensions. The
developer claims that they were inhabited recently, however the document provided
(blueprints) by them contradicts this statement. New houses must not be within
400m of SPA, the development is directly adjacent, although the developer is holding
to the argument that they are not new developments. DS said that the developer
haven’t put forward their proposal yet (the application is purely structural at
present) therefore the buildings are only on site to support business and they cannot
be sold. The deadline has been extended to the 22nd January for responding to the
planning application. Objections will be made to the applications. CR asked if the
developer has to maintain state of grade 1 buildings listing. JW responded that the
law is not very stringent and it is difficult to enforce, unless buildings become
structurally unsound. JB wanted to know if access to site would be at the far end.
MC replied that access for the top end is under discussion and that RSPB is disputing
their right to cross the common. DS mentioned that the existing bridge on the track
is not suitable for heavy plant. CR asked whether National Trust/English Heritage
had expressed an interest in ownership of the Bramshill estate. MC said that they
are not interested, due to there being no associated dowry for maintenance.
JC made a suggestion regarding fencing, if grazing becomes a management option for
Hazeley. He has emailed LW about the pheasantry owners putting up a wooden
boundary fence between the heath and their land. It is a very good wooden fence,
which could be used as an example to show the public. LW will go and look at the
fence to see. There are many options for fencing that could be considered. MC was
less keen on temporary fencing schemes and would prefer a longer term solution
rather than a 5-year scheme. JB added that it would be more economically viable to
do it with a longer term solution. LW expressed concern that the public may not
like to see ‘permanent’ fencing proposed, so a time period may need to be
stipulated. Either way, this issue is some way off yet (after consultation and report
period).
JC raised the issue of features/areas of the site not being named (e.g. where scrapes
are done) making it difficult to easily identify certain areas. He has created a map for
areas where scrapes have been done, including their dates. Copies of this map were
passed on to LW and MC for consideration and agreement. JC added that there may
be a need to name certain features on the heath (like the dell and boardwalk are
currently named). MC stated that naming things officially is difficult where some
people may have their own local naming conventions. He agreed that some names
would be beneficial to facilitate finding certain areas on the heath and asked whether
this group could agree on a naming convention. TA proposed that a system for
taking suggestions be put in Parish magazines. MC agreed that this was a good idea
and LW stated that we need to decide which features to name/the principal features.
ACTION ALL.
JC said that he had his first record in January of Stonechat and Dartford Warbler in
both southern and northern halves of the heath. Also, there are regular snipe on
both halves. LW added that David King (Hart ranger) recorded woodcock on the
site recently as well. JC concluded that whether it is due to management or the
weather, it is difficult to say, however it is a good sign.
CR raised the concern that due to wet weather, people are creating new
paths/desire lines. She wanted to know if this is detrimental to the site. LW
responded that it depends on the extent and it is very difficult to police. CR wanted
to know whether this could be remedied on the short term. LW said that we can’t
bring in external material to fill in areas of the site, due to its designation. CR asked
whether particular paths should be avoided, to limit churning the ground up further.
LW couldn’t think immediately of specific areas of concern. JB stated that there is
currently no distinction between bridleways and footpaths, which is exacerbating the
problem. MC responded that bridleway designation makes Hampshire County
responsible for maintenance. This would be beneficial, as well-maintained paths will
be used more. The issue of new paths/churning existing ones may be a problem if
conditions persist for much longer, but just requires monitoring for the time being.
MC briefly discussed the viewing area. The subject requires full consultation (despite
the current process) with individual correspondence. He apologised that individuals
are likely to receive further correspondence relating to this issue, and that they
should respond as they did previously.
DS raised the issue of cars parked on RSPB land at Hazeley Bottom, by the
letterbox. MC said that the RSPB don’t like parking on the common and it is
encroachment on the common. They can suggest that cars are not parked there,
however this will affect a lot of people around the common and they need to not
discriminate. Technically speaking it is encroachment, however many other people
park on the common as part of normal access (for clarity, MC added that people
cannot park on ‘rights of way’). Therefore, it is a very difficult issue to address, due
to knowing where to draw the line. DS asked if it is possible to designate it as a
parking area, to alleviate the issue of illegal, irresponsible parking. MC responded
that this would involve talking to PINS. DS then asked whether railings could be
erected to deter parking. MC responded that they can put a 20m length of posts at
2m gaps, without going through PINS, so this may be an option. MC concluded that
the existing railing may be able to be extended – which will be considered.
Date of next meeting – Tuesday 12th of April at 2pm was agreed amongst
all present.