Sutton-in-Craven Village Website

Village Web Site Forum

From	Subject/message
Tim Armsby glusburn Friday, March 7, 2014 14:23	Lyndhurst /Glusburn Woods....FENCE I'm amazed to see that there is no thread about this subject....All this week Woodland Trust have been putting the most hideous ugly fence around the Woods ....They have done 50 yards already.....leaving the locals to crash around in mud on the edge of the beck....This fence is very inappropriate....Apparently Woodland Trust placed info on the Sutton Parish notice boards Tim I'll post more later
Tim Armsby glusburn Friday, March 7, 2014 14:27	Most easy for me is if I let you see a letter I sent to Woodland Trust I am writing to inform you that I consider one of your woodland projects to be highly inappropriate and ill considered. I would like this letter to be considered by someone of higher authority than the leader of this project. The project is the fencing of large areas of Lyndhurst Woods , Glusburn BD20. The work is being done right now , and action needs to be taken now. I and many others believe the project to be a waste of money and resources. A site meeting should be held to involve other voices in these decisions. I have stood at the entrance to the woods for 3 hours and spoken to 50-60 people who use the woods , a large volume of people use these woods, and all of them could see no reason that such a blight on the landscape should stand. Words and phrases which were regularly used were - totally inappropriate - ridiculous- absolutely appalling- terrible eyesore- stupid- mad-hideous- naive. One or two have seen a grain of hope in the project but even they said the fence was an ugly appendage, that it was a hammer to crack a nut, which would probably very quickly get torn down and abused, such is the volume of people who legitimately used the woods as a recreation resource. I know that the land is the Woodland Trusts and needs no planning permission BUT it would have been civil and courteous to have contacted and had consultation with the local community. As far as I am aware no approach was made to the community at large. The woods are a very thin pencil of land, not acres and acres where a fence can be ignored, all views and aesthetics will be totally spoiled and lost. The wild garlic etc grow in abundance and there are many places where flowers can grow unhindered. The fence is TOO imposing for the size and nature of the area. The aesthetic and structure of the woods is likely to be totally lost, and the straight lines of the fence the dominating structure, ugly and hideous. The fence ruins the view of the landscape. The project manager has applied no imagination as to the make up and look of the fence, and many ways no intuitive reasoning ref the practicalities of the fence and environment. Already with the winters rain and high water table the pathway will be a slippery dangerous quagmire by Monday (with the beck 3 feet away) if it rains. The fence in general appears to be intended to enclose 50-75% of the woods and make the locals walk on very limited routes around the edge. The reason : to allow flowers etc to grow. Lyndhurst Woods is not and never has been a 'blue bell' wood....it is a Wild Garlic and Clementine wood. The limited pathways , channelling everyone on narrow stretches of ground, will without doubt create the most dreadful quagmires - dangerous in some cases. The river sometimes violently floods exactly where the fence is being put. People (as many as 500 a day) go into that wood for some freedom and natural things, to get away from straight lines and conformity....they go there for many reasons....they all love it the way it is, even with it's limitations. This project will not work in practise. You are wasting your money. You are spoiling our woods. I have rung 3 times over 2 days and been told someone will get in touch....they have not. This of course is a fait accompli, because the project just goes on unhindered....and chance of a site meeting to discuss it , or a postponement becomes remote or non estistent. Someone in authority should look into this very quickly. I assure you I am not a lone voice....everyone is essentially against the actions being taken in Glusburn Woods. 6.3.14
Tim Armsby glusburn Friday, March 7, 2014 15:35	http://suttonincravenpc.org/news-lyndhurstwood.html It sounds a good idea....BUT....not in the overbearing ugly dominant way they are doing it.
Tim Armsby glusburn Friday, March 7, 2014 15:49	Sorry to keep posting,but I am really het up and sad about this....in the letter above I also said: Within reason intelligently and creatively placed fencing could have enhance the woods . A landscaper could have enclosed areas that might have added to the landscape. Instead we have an ad hoc fence in straight lines enclosing far too much of areas which already florish with flowers in the Spring and do not need enclosing. It is a cattle fence - applied without imagination which can only be a blot on the beautiful natural landscape . Far too much of the wood is being enclosed....far too much of the natural beauty of the woods is being taken away and the local community is treated like cattle.
Steve Morrell Sutton-In-Craven Parish Council (Vice Chairman) Friday, March 7, 2014 22:03	Tim, After your phone call this afternoon in which you expressed your concerns, I immediately went out and walked the length and breadth of Lyndhurst Wood. I agree that there is a problem where the newly established fence corrals people down to the river and then herds them along the river bank. The land there is already churned into ankle deep mud. I have contacted the Clerk to the council who has emailed the Woodland Trust to outline the problem, and to suggest that they use wood chippings to assist on this path. I have also spoken to you personally about your objections to the type of fencing being used along with the linear layout. I pointed out to you this matches perfectly fencing already in situ on a length of the top path, so I do not support your objections to this. The Woodland trust seem to have gone to some lengths to have matched fencing already established and have therefore shown sensitivity to local established fencing. If you care to look at the Woodland Trust website you will see their clearly stated aims and objectives along with their history, including very specific details about their reasons for intervention. These statements make clear that they wish to re-establish historic woodlands such as those they are engaging, including this one within our village boundaries, and return them to their original indigenous status. Check this link: http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/our-story/what-we-do/ I feel I must state that this wood is privately owned by the Woodland Trust. There is one, and only one registered footpath and that is along the top border of this wood, adjacent to the fields that look up to the Pinnacle. All other access is at the land owners consent. We need to be clear about that from the start. If they wanted to they could quite legally fence off the whole wood! Having said that, the Woodland Trust have been happy to grant open access in the past and there is no doubt that the same open access will be granted in the future. In the mean time they are suggesting a 70% closure in order to facilitate their proposed regeneration plan. This is as I understand things from minutes of Parish Council meetings and phone conversations this evening, something I am happy to support. Steve Morrell
Tim Armsby glusburn Saturday, March 8, 2014 11:29	Lets look at it this way....the Woodland Trust have owned (it is a charity trust) the woods for a very long time, 20 years at least in which time THEY have let it deteriorate to the state that i is now in....and now without even the smallest bit of consultation (I understand they do not have to) they are coming in with sledge hammer to turn around their mismanagement. I have spoken to 5 councillors and not one of them has ever met anyone from WT. To show what EXPERTS they are, they have commenced putting in the fence BEFORE they do some major felling of old chestnut btrees (which you originally asked them to investigate). Your beautifully crafted pc paragraph about the fencing leaves me cold - just because rubbish fencing was originally used on one side, does not mean rubbish fencing should be used on the other. After all the original fence is protecting us from cattle, and the new one will only protect us from flowers. Its linear nature has been decried by the over 100 people I have talked to - so I beg to differ from your view. As to the local Parish Councillors that I have contacted - they have a very limited view of what excellence and decent aesthetics MIGHT be.....they are too accepting of stark inadequacy. As we know that someone who is an expert at one thing (conservation), might be blind and complete dunz at another(landscaping and aesthetics)....and in this case aesthetics matter....even if you do not see it Steve. Woodchip is can only be a temporary solution....anyone who has seen the springs gushing this year during rain would understand that woodchip would very quickly get washed into the beck. I understand completely your para 4....but it is not what they are doing (I want flowers and regeneration too)....it is HOW they are doing it.....and your idea that we the local community should not have a say in it is perverse, accepting, meek and mild. Woodland Trust SHOULD be trying to balance several things....regeneration - the locals (consultation)and their recreation - aesthetics and landscape (nature/natural spaces) -expert opinion - this generation and the next. WT are taking too much volume out of the woods, and creating an eyesore. The job could be done much much better for the same money. Local opinion should count, and I hope a lot more people will RING Parish Clerk Denise Emmott on 633972....email clerk.suttonincraven@gmail.com and make their views known. regards tim
Tim Armsby glusburn Saturday, March 8, 2014 16:02	WT have had this wood for a very long time (over 20+ years) and have made minimal input and financial outlay. It is WT that has let it gradually deteriorate to its present level. Now you come in to make a open-space into an ugly corridor without any sensitivity or thoughtfulness. A tired cathedral into a linear galvanised steel mesh mess. And WT did not even leave a single message/notice where it would have been easily seen by the users of the woods - at the entrance to the wood - that say a lot in my opinion. tim
Alan Smith Sutton Saturday, March 8, 2014 16:41	For years there was no public access to this wooded area but the footpath along the top was not confined to a narrow muddy strip by the barbed wire fence restricting walkers from straying onto the fields these did not arrive till the local mills sold the farms to their tenant farmers.
Tim Armsby glusburn Saturday, March 8, 2014 17:57	Yes but we are now in 2014....what you are talking about is years ago, and not relevant to the issue at hand really. No offense I hope. tim
Tim Armsby glusburn Monday, March 10, 2014 14:30	Ref your message concerning Woodland Trust and Grass Woods....They cannot be compared Steve....GrassWoods is 100's of acres in Limestone country, the fences disappear in size like that. Also GWoods is mainly ASH & HAZEL, the flora is quite different, where they have done most conservation. There are no Ash in Lyndhurst, the place is the size of 3 football fields . It is an intimate place, not an enormous landscape. Also you have swallowed the word 'regeneration', but you do not really know what they are going to do* - seed - plant trees???? *or at least you didn't know on Friday
John Roger Whitaker Sutton Tuesday, March 11, 2014 16:21	Regarding " the fence " Agreed woodchippings are not the answer to the bottomless mud issue that will occur, without a doubt. But drainage in to the beck at the bad points that have come about over the last years is possibly what needs to be done, this is quite likely what happened years ago via land drains that have over the years collapsed due to lack of maintenance by the WT, also the knowledge of where the drains are will have been lost as people with the knowledge have passed on. Better drainage less mud !!!!
Tim Armsby glusburn Wednesday, March 12, 2014 09:52	That might be one way of doing it....though tree roots will make it tricky. I've found Woodland Trusts Management plan for Lyndhurst Woods 2010-15 http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/woodfile/545/management-plan.pdf?cb=b8dd519b1276434bba2b7d221f9aff54 (please tell me if the link not work) What it tell us is: page 8 4.0 LONG TERM POLICY The long-term intention is to develop and maintain a diverse broadleaved high forest, encouraging self-sustaining woodland of broadleaved species with a mixed shrub layer and diverse age structure. Open public access will maintained. page9 Significance The popularity of the wood perhaps speaks for itself in that it clearly provides a much-needed recreational resource for the local community. Despite being of a small size it is one of the few accessible woodlands locally and probably the only one within easy walking distance of the villages. The popularity of this small wood has resulted in many of the paths being well braided, which perhaps degrades the appearance of the woodland. However there is little that can be done to counter this due to the site size and popularity. To have a well-maintained circular footpath (750m) that enables good access all the year round with 3 access points. To limit footpath erosion wherever practically possible. Investigate the extent of footpath erosion and consider options for reducing the erosion where such measures would improve the access provision and visual appearance of the site. page10 The wood has a high percentage of trees in the mature age range with a limited number of younger trees and seedlings. The high level of use has resulted in large areas of worn and compacted ground, which limits the areas suitable for natural regeneration to establish. The small areas that are available will need to be monitored in future years to ensure sufficient regeneration is present to maintain braodleaved woodland on the site. Increased public usage, Natural regeneration of tree, shrub and groundflora speces, Footpath erosion due to high public usage, Loss of mature trees through old age and safety issues That the diverse broadleaved high forest, including shrub and ground flora species is maintained through natural regeneration. Investigate the extent of footpath erosion and consider options for reducing the erosion where such measures would improve visual appearance and opportunities for recovery of the ground flora and natural regeneration of tree species WHAT THIS TELLS: 1) 'open access will be maintained' : which in eco speak means unrestricted access, you can access (some) land across GB without the need of a path. 2) Nowhere on the document does it even hint that 75% of the woods will be unsensitively fenced off in a wholesale manner....they only suggest very small sympathetic remedies.They talk about 'consider options for reducing the erosion where such measures would improve visual appearance'....well a monstrous linear steel fence certainly does not do that. 8 days on, I have sent 10 letter /emails to WT +phoning, but have only received a generic reply to the first, that several other complainers got....very short. But work may have been stopped....but they have not even bothered to communicate that....no project management has been on site since the work started.
Tim Armsby glusburn Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:43	Just had this email from the project manager Alistair Nash Thank you for your correspondence regarding the management of Lyndhurst Wood. Due to the level of concern generated by the work, we have decided to remove the fenced enclosure and look, through consultation over the coming months to decide the best course of action over the woods. I would, however, like to explain the reasoning behind the works, which may well inform the future planning for the wood: The work we started in Lyndhurst followed three years of monitoring, in which, due to the wood�s popularity and accessibility, the paths have increased to the extent that they now cover over 20% of the woodland floor. The path along the streamside, with public pressure has widened dramatically and the trampling damage to the defining ancient woodland ground flora is clear to see, species which are intolerant to damage and slow to recover. Paths in the upper part of the woodland have become equally damaging, combined with shortcuts from the public footpath to the south, as well as numerous shortcuts down the wooded slope to the riverside. At only 2.5 acres, Lyndhurst Wood is unable to sustain this level of pressure. Combined with the effects of pubic usage, the woodland is continuing to suffer the effects of tree disease, and losses to the mature woodland canopy. In the early years of Woodland Trust ownership, since 1990, the remnants of the elm were lost, and in recent years the effects of Horse chestnut Bleeding Canker have been clear � with just this last week in the gales, a further tree was lost, and another large mature tree at the entrance starting to show the symptoms. This is just one of an increasing suite of tree disease facing us � including ash dieback, and hence the urgency to protect the ground flora and the diversity of regenerating saplings to create a resilient woodland. Fencing off blocks of the woodland to protect the ancient woodland species and to guide public access appeared the only sustainable way of ensuring the protection of the woodland that we need to do. It is heartening to see the response regarding Lyndhurst Wood and there is obviously a great deal of affection for the woodland from a large number of the people who walk there on a regular basis, and I hope there will be a significant number of people who will work with us to safeguard the woodlands future. Alistair Nash
Terry Longbottom Valley Monday, March 17, 2014 11:53	Is it not time the Sutton �Offcumduns rejection society� formed as a direct result of the high jacking of the Sutton web by persons performing monologues (talking to and, answering themselves) with scant regard to the other contributors to the forum. PS the Yorkshire offcumduns rejection party need to watch this particularly vociferous individual. �my lover�
Adam Stares Sutton in Craven Monday, March 17, 2014 18:04	Terry, regarding your new society. As somebody who has not quite lived in the village for all of my life, would you like me to wear a bright orange jumpsuit with arrows on it so that I am easier to spot when I am back in Sutton?
Terry Longbottom Valley Monday, March 17, 2014 22:42	no need to Adam the offcumduns stand out like sore thumbs. I myself am not fully integrated, the family only residing in Sutton for six generations so it can't be put down to inbreeding.

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.