Village Web Site Forum

Robin Longbottom
Saturday, March 15, 2014 06:37
Lyndhurst Wood
This wood is a largely mid 19th century plantation. The 1840 Tithe Map shows that the fields originally continued down to the Holme Beck and that what is now the wood fell into three separate ownerships. The map marks some trees towards the eastern end, near the 1900 Bridge, but otherwise the land at this time was given over to pasture.

Until it was taken over by the Woodland Trust it was strictly private, although that didn't stop us sneaking in when I was a lad in the late 1950's, early 60's. It is without doubt an assett to the local community since it has been opened for general access by the Woodland Trust. However, maintenance and regeneration are essential if it is to continue as a viable wood and I sincerely hope that, following the recent furore, the Woodland Trust do not divert their limited recources to other more ancient woodlands. Perhaps some of those who use it regularly would like to volunteer to help the Trust in maintenace work, alternatatively donations can be made specifically to support Lyndhurst Wood via the Woodland Trust website.

The Woodland Trust is the UK's leading woodland conservation charity and successfully manages over a 1000 areas of woodland.
Tim Armsby
Saturday, March 15, 2014 11:25
I think you will find some are already direct debitors to WT. Also some regular users do already do work in the woods keeping it almost entirely free from litter and broken glass (several full black bags per year)....they also try to keep the damaged walls from blending into the undergrowth....trim bushes, stopping ivy climbing the trees... ringing the environment agency ref downed trees in the beck.... picking up other peoples litter and dog muck on the paths leading up to the woods....talking to children who are damaging the woods....

....WT may be this, they may be that....but at no point before, leading up to, during, or as they made their about-turn, make any effort to consult with the community or involve them(excepting an email to PC)....which is completely contrary to all they say normally do on their web site. It's a fiasco ,but was not of the woods users making. Surely people have a right to protest, or report a cause for concern, surely the have the right to be heard, and surely they should expect an almost corporate body like WT to make all their decisions using local knowledge wherever possible after consultation, especially when they are 'gifted' a woods by a local philanthropist with a covenant that they are for the use and enjoyment of locals. They were given every chance to talk about the work in the woods....they did not talk and made their bizarre decision in camera as well as well.
Stephen Spencer Place
Saturday, March 15, 2014 18:20
T hank you Robin for your reasonable comment. In all my years on Craven District Council I have had many dealings with Woodland Trust and can only extol their virtues.(Skipton woods/Skipton Castle Woods, and many,many more). The Trusts' primary aim is to protect woodland ,trees and their wildlife FOR THE FUTURE and to inspire everyone to enjoy and value woods and trees.Their success is evidenced throughout the District of Craven and their efforts fully recognised by CDC, Town Councils and Parish Councils from Sutton to Ingleton. Dealings with local communities through their elected representatives have always been open, fruitful and detailed and for anyone to suggest that they do not talk and make bizarre decisions in camera is, in itself bizarre and unfounded. I too, Robin, hope that the ridiculous furore created by any one individual does not result in the Trust saying *** it and walking away. Now might be a good time to reassure our friends at Woodland Trust that their efforts, on behalf of all reasonably minded people of Sutton, are appreciated.
Tim Armsby
Saturday, March 15, 2014 23:03
Well I'm afraid Steve in this case you are pretty much absolutely wrong, in my opinion . From all the contact I have had with Sutton PC, they told me that the PC have had very little contact with WT about the fencing, and that the email the PC had WAS NOT DETAILED (had no map or plan attached - did not say what work was being done, nor how they were going to do it, nor what type materials they would use, nor how long it would take, nor did they hint at the permanency of the work.
This was the extent of the information that the PC had :

The Woodland Trust are planning some woodland management works at Lyndhurst Wood over the next month.

The woodland, being very popular and not being a large or wide area, is suffering to a great extent from trampling and erosion which is preventing/ greatly reducing the regeneration of trees, shrubs and ground flora necessary for the maintenance of the woodland in the landscape.

There have also been losses to the mature trees through disease of the horse chestnuts and a few wind blow damage to the beech and sycamores, with future potential issues for tree disease (eg. Ash dieback).

What the trust are intending to do in the first instance is to create some long thin fenced enclosures to encourage tree regeneration, which will guide access by people and dogs along the river bank, whilst retaining a few access points up and down to the footpath.

A similar operation was done at Lower Grass Woods at Grassington some 10 years ago, and the fenced enclosures are now rich in ash, oak, beech and hawthorn regeneration providing a guaranteed succession of woodland.

Sutton PC put this on their web site possibly thinking they had done enough to advertise the work, but I think it is unrealistic to think that most people read the web site more than once every now and again. WT did not put up any prior notice (they do not have to, but it might have been polite and practical).
I think the PC completely failed to understand (mainly because they asked no questions of WT and secondly most PC members rarely use the woods for recreation) that to 'create long thin fenced enclosures', ACTUALLY meant to enclose 75% of the woods in 2 large enclosures , which as I have shown elsewhere is actually a complete mockery of WTs own management plan for Lyndhurst woods 2010-15 (published on the WT web site). I think there are a lot of people to be blamed here and none of them are the people who emailed WT, for it was not an INDIVIDUAL who emailed, it was several (6 at least and possibly more) upstanding, articulate , intelligent, well meaning people (ex teachers and professionals included)who merely asked WT to stop for a moment and have some dialogue about their concerns (since the PC had attempted none at all at that time) Our answer was ABSOLUTE SILENCE, nothing bar the same generic email the PC got, which explained none of our intelligent questions like: where, how big, made of what, for how long, is there a map we can see. We gave them very detailed information about the woods, that they obviously had not thought of....ABSOLUTE SILENCE. To cap it all, as far as I know the PC have never actually been informed of what WTs final action was (their dismantling of the fence) the only way the PC know about it is through the email to myself that I published on the forum. I tried to get someone to speak to me for 8 days but not once did I speak to anybody in charge. All promises by back office staff of phone replies from someone in authority came to nothing. I believe Sutton PC put in a request but got no answer either.
So while you Steve may have had no problems with WT, we did. We very much did have troubles with WT , unless you are accusing 6+ people of lying. While you Steve feel the PC works fine, the 200 people I talked to thought the lack of notice and information both from WT and Sutton PC to be a poor do. (In fact to show how on the ball the PC is , it's list of councillors includes one person who died sometime ago and one who no longer lives around here.) I think the PC should accept some responsibility for their lack of pro action. It is utterly ridiculous that you think an INDIVIDUAL could have caused such a fiasco on his own. It is obvious you are being very selective with the information, ignoring what you do not fancy, and including what you do fancy.
This INDIVIDUAL (it is myself) had a perfect right to voice my concerns to WT. I have a perfect right to ask why the PC were not more on the ball. This INDIVIDUAL puts his real name on his forum posts....but I know there are many villagers (not all) who feel the same as I do, for they have told me so. I have been completely open about my activities and have nothing hide or be ashamed of. I repeat, for WT to make no attempt to consult, or even to properly acknowledge our existence....and to make their final decision without contact with the PC or ourselves is bizarre , a real shame and completely unprofessional on their part.
Tim Armsby
Saturday, March 15, 2014 23:12 are of course right that WT have done very many good projects, I have worked on some of them in my youth.
David Laycock
Sunday, March 16, 2014 00:40
On a lighter note Tim, As a kid, the beck running through the woods was one of the first places I headed for after a good rain with my can of worms, as it would be in spate and the crafty brown you had a problem with ventured out to feed and it was good fun. You had to take the chance of being caught and "kicked" out. I just forget who had the rights.
Stephen Spencer Place
Sunday, March 16, 2014 11:29

Conspiracy Theory No.1 who shot JR ? Surely not the Woodland Trust. Conspiracy Theory No.2 Where's Elvis. Surely not camped out in a Woodland Trust Forest? Conspiracy Theory No.3 Did the Woodland Trust have contact with aliens in Area 51 of Lyndhurst Woods? Conspiracy Theory No.4 As Russia annexed Crimea, Glusburn have annexed Lyndhurst Woods from the Parish of Sutton. No! the wood is a part of Sutton Parish Council area, and both the Parish Council and I are fully supportive of the work the Trust does and is proposing to do. Sutton Parish Council have a proven and long term record of successful woodland and wildlife management within the Parish. Finally, I pass my regrets to the work people of the Woodland Trust who were, it has been suggested, shouted at, intimi dated and verbally abused by a handful of rabble-rousers, whoever they might be, but I suspect they were not "Suttoners".
Sutton-in-Craven Parish Council
Sunday, March 16, 2014 11:29
Statement from Sutton-in-Craven Parish Council:

Sutton-in-Craven Parish Council fully support the work carried out by the Woodland Trust in Lyndhurst Wood both now and in the past.

As land owners the Woodland Trust have the prerogative not to consult at all but they have.

The Parish Council are communicating with the Woodland Trust on the regeneration of Lyndhurst Wood.
Robin Longbottom
Sunday, March 16, 2014 17:53
I refer to Mr Tim Armsby's response of 15th March and I am amazed that he states that he is trimming bushes and removing ivy from trees in the woodland. I cannot imagine anyone taking this upon themselves, unless under the direction or licence from the owners. The Royal Horticultural Society make a number of observations with regard to ivy on their website - one of which states ... "Ivy has much wildlife value. As ground cover in woodland, ivy greatly lessens the effect of frost, enabling birds and woodland creatures to forage in leaf litter during bitter spells. Growing on trees, it provides hiding, roosting, hibernating and nesting places for various animals, birds and insects (including butterflies), particularly during the winter months and in areas where there are few other evergreens". No doubt Mr Armsby will also take issue with the Royal Horticultural Society.

  Posting to the forum is de-activated due to lack of use.

  You are welcome to browse through posts but cannot add comments or start new topics.