SILCHESTER COMMON GRAZING PROPOSALS
A BACKGROUND REPORT
By
Paul Edgar, Project Officer
North East Hampshire Heathlands Project
September 1992 

5: MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR SILCHESTER COMMON

The ultimate goal of any management scheme is not to preserve habitats as some sort of unchanging garden, nor is it desirable to eradicate any of our native species, however invasive they can be. Instead, Silchester Parish Council has investigated ways of restoring, as far as possible, the balance of nature which has been so upset by the removal of grazing, frequent arson attacks on the Common and the problems of habitat fragmentation and the isolation of populations. Successful management will permit the full range of species to survive on Silchester Common, without any becoming a threat to the habitat, and allow all natural stages of vegetation succession to develop.

i. Non–intervention. Letting nature take its course is sometimes advocated for various sites. In the absence of original native species, like aurochs which had such an important influence on the natural landscape, with sites isolated and many species unable to disperse naturally, with the negative aspects of human impact, such as fires, continuing in an uncontrolled way and with all the knock on effects of these problems on the delicate natural balance this option was quickly ruled out for Silchester Common. Public consultation has shown that the whole village also wishes to see the Common managed (Appendix II), despite the fact that non–intervention is obviously the cheapest option.

Until recent years, and the availability of better funding, very few of the sites to have escaped direct destruction, including Silchester Common, were being managed adequately anyway and the result is a wholesale decline in wildlife. Sites that have been degraded through abuse and neglect are almost impossible to defend against planning applications on conservation grounds. In contrast, the New Forest, still traditionally managed and grazed, is now one of the most species rich and important semi–natural landscapes left in Europe, a fact recognised by its special legal protection through its own Acts of Parliament.

Non–intervention has actually been practised deliberately by many landowners who find themselves with an unwanted SSSI they wish to develop. There is no legal requirement to manage such sites, although it is technically illegal to destroy them. By refusing to allow any positive management, landowners can let their sites deteriorate to such an extent that English Nature is forced to denotify them as SSSIs and development is possible. Alternatively, English Nature has to use public funds to compensate the landowner for the money he is potentially losing by not developing the site, a system wide open to abuse as people have sometimes received payments to prevent development that was never intended.

All the evidence supports the need to manage sites positively and Silchester Parish Council would be failing in its duties if it allowed the diversity of the Con-u to completely deteriorate. Unchecked scrub and gorse encroachment, and litter accumulation, would also severely increase the risk of a major fire (which happened in 1976 when most of the Common was burnt) and one would inevitably occur again sooner or later. Many neglected sites have suffered such fierce fires, because of the amount of combustible material that has built up, that adjacent housing has had to be evacuated and numerous species have became locally extinct. Minimising the risk of a very serious fire, which would certainly be a threat to some properties, is obviously highly desirable. Studies on other sites have shown that grazing is the best method of preventing the build–up of excessive amounts of highly combustible plant litter on heathland.

ii. Short Term Management. This involves the management of the most degraded areas of heath and fen, almost always where severe fires have occurred in the absence of grazing. A more balanced and diverse mix of habitats, with all stages of vegetation succession present can be achieved by simple techniques.

a. Scrub clearance. Removal of scrub from recently invaded areas of heathland, where this has been shown to be to the detriment of the site, is a straightforward task but is expensive as contractors are necessary to clear large areas. Young pine can simply be removed, as cutting will kill them outright, but deciduous species require stump treatment with chemicals approved by English Nature to prevent coppicing. Chemicals are unnecessary if the site is grazed as cattle in particular eat the regrowth.

Dense stands of young secondary birch woodland can be thinned, retaining a good number of birch and species like oak. This is normal forestry practice, as the trees grow much better with reduced competition but is pointless for the purposes of heathland management unless cattle are present to break up the litter, promote the germination of heather and other species and control the massive numbers of tree seedlings always produced. If light grazing can occur then imaginative thinning, so that dense woodland grades gradually into the more open areas, is an excellent way of adding to the overall species diversity and improving public access. A felling licence has been obtained from the Forestry Authority for thinning young secondary woodland along the “funnel” of the Common.

The seeding ability of birch is so good in the absence of grazing that many heathland managers are forced to remove the majority of trees to avoid future problems. The woodland edge, if present, is often very abrupt as a result, with no sheltered glades or trees in the open. This is a unfortunate since birch is one of the most valuable native tree for insects, and scattered trees on open sunny heathland support a different fauna to birch woodland, adding to the diversity of a site. The type of open birch–oak woodland created by thinning plus grazing is possibly the closest approximation to parts of the original “wildwood”, which once grew on these soils.

b. Bracken Control. Where this species is not spreading there is no need to control it. It has a limited wildlife value, compared to the vegetation it often replaces, but there are some 45 insect species which are able to feed on bracken and many are restricted to it (out of 10,000 or more invertebrate species recorded from some sites). Bracken in the shade of trees supports a richer fauna than bracken in the open. Bracken, however, has the ability to take advantage of severe fires and become dominant before the former vegetation can recover. After several years its dense litter and toxic secretions kill all other plant life. The whole plant is poisonous, and it can even exude cyanide gas in small quantities. The spores are thought to be carcinogenic when inhaled and the tick which carries Lyme disease is mainly found in bracken litter.

Large, spreading bracken stands therefore need to be controlled, either by regular cutting or spraying with the chemical Asulox (a specific, degradable herbicide, not a pesticide). Countryside Commission funding is available for both control methods and work has already begun this summer. Grazed heathland is not easily reinvaded by bracken, as the emerging fronds are very susceptible to trampling damage in the Spring.

iii. Long Term Management. Once the worst of the habitat deterioration has been tackled by the short term management it is important to prevent a repetition of the same problems and the need for further, expensive remedial work. Adequate fire breaking is vital, but not always possible on slopes, and helps to slow down any decline. Something else is needed, however, to keep the levels of nutrients in the system low and habitat diversity high, for the full range of species to survive. The options considered by Silchester Parish Council are reviewed below.

a. Controlled Burning. Paradoxically, controlled winter burning is often used to manage heather moorland and the heathland of the New Forest, although it is far more recent than other traditional human activities. Correctly done, it has proved to be a very useful technique as it removes nutrients from the system, controls smothering vegetation and stimulates the fresh growth of heather and some other species. When it is used too frequently controlled burning replaces too much of the older heather with young growth, unsuitable for certain species. The extinction of the sand lizard in the New Forest by the early 1980 was a result of over enthusiastic burning and the Forestry Commission now allows less burning and has had to re–introduce this species.

Summer heath fires (it is illegal to burn heather between 31 March and 1 November without a special licence) are far more damaging and encourage invasive species, especially where the litter and scrub have built up on ungrazed sites, and directly kill many species. Any contravention of the provisions of the Heather and Grass etc. (Burning) Regulations 1986 is an offence under section 20(2) of the Hill Farming Act 1946, as amended by section 72(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and offenders are liable to a fine of up to £1000.

Any burning in the absence of grazing is unsuitable for humid or wet heath, because this can lead to increased dominance by purple moor grass. Many rare species are also fire sensitive and cannot even tolerate moderate winter burns. Damage to the habitat or species on a SSSI through burning by the landowner is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. There is a lack of local expertise with this technique anyway and a poor burn does more harm than good. Burning also tends to foster the impression that all fires are beneficial for heathland and copycat blazes are not uncommon, usually at the wrong time of year.

Another major drawback with burning is the nuisance factor for the local residents which would no doubt result from the smoke. The emission of smoke so as to be prejudicial to health or cause a nuisance actually constitutes a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. If anyone, including members of the public using the Common, is physically endangered by burning operations an offence has been committed under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. In addition, the presence of Silchester Road, which crosses the north of the Common, is a further complication since it is an offence under the Highways Act 1980 (as amended in 1986) to light a fire so as to cause injury, interruption or danger to road users.

There is very little habitat on Silchester Common which is ideally suited to controlled burning and the location and use by the public mean that it is almost impossible to burn, even if enough experienced personnel were to be found, without contravening one or another of the abeve Acts. This option has therefore been ruled out as a management technique by the Parish Council.

b. Vegetation Cutting. Invasive species are checked, and nutrient levels are kept low, by a cutting regime. This requires the removal of all cut material, preferably with a forage harvester. Disadvantages include the need to use machinery and the possible soil compaction caused. Access is limited to relatively flat areas with few obstacles, such as stumps, so most of the Common could not be cut adequately. The impact on invertebrates is not always positive in the short term, because their habitat is suddenly changed completely, but done in small areas at any one time they benefit overall as their food plants remain abundant.

Although cutting the vegetation and large grass tussocks can be very helpful in maintaining diversity in the absence of grazing, it is expensive and its value is somewhat limited in reproducing natural conditions for the germination and growth of certain plant species. Cutting tends to produce homogeneous blocks of vegetation which lack the many subtle variations and microhabitats, like hoof prints, created by light grazing and needed by most of the insects and smaller plants. Cutting a small patch each year, so the accessible areas are treated on a long rotation of about 20 – 30 years, is often not possible when numerous uncontrolled fires occur.

c. Turf Cutting. Before the widespread availability of coal in the 19th century most people were limited in their sources of fuel. Trees were valued for timber and often strictly protected against removal for cooking or heating purposes. Coppicing, pollarding and the commoners right to collect fallen wood (estovers) and cut scrub, gorse and heather helped to alleviate this problem. Turf and peat were also cut as a fuel source (turbary), in a scattered haphazard way, from the very earliest times of human occupation. Again, the nutrient status of the soils was kept low and a patchwork of fresh germination sites and the small areas of bare ground, loved by many insects, was created. Peat cuttings often filled with water on wet sites and these tiny acid ponds duplicated the natural habitat of a variety of species. In more recent times, the creation of rotovated fire breaks, which expose bare sand, has provided one of the most important insect habitats on heaths.

 Plants and animals benefiting from this activity originally exploited microhabitats like hoof prints and waterlogged poached areas, the spoil created by burrowing animals and the rooting around done by species like wild boar, and also the depressions (sometimes holding a small pond) and the soil on the vertical root plates exposed by fallen trees. The burrowing solitary wasps, most abundant on sandy heathland, illustrate the diversity which evolved under natural conditions. Various species require either damp or dry sand, loose or compacted sand, large or small patches of bare ground with varying degrees of shading, and flat, sloped or vertical sites facing in all directions of the coir – and every permutation of these conditions.

Turf cutting done manually on a small scale (nothing to do with mechanised peat stripping for the horticultural industry) would be extremely beneficial. This has been done on several sites in recent years, with excellent results. Light cattle grazing would have similar effects in smaller patches, creating a better mosaic of vegetation and bare ground. Turf cutting is labour intensive, and impractical for large areas, but one or two turf cuttings a year, of about 20 or 30 square metres and confined to parts of the bog, would be very valuable. Again, machine cutting is impractical on the Common

d. Grazing. Detailed studies, carried out by the North East Hampshire Heathlands Project, of cattle grazing on Passfield Common in East Hampshire (which Silchester Parish Councillors have visited) have produced the following observations in the first two years:

Species diversity is increasing
Some species apparently “lost” from the site have reappeared
Many seeds are provided with the opportunity to germinate
A more diverse mosaic of vegetation is developing
Most established heather plants are invigorated
Purple moor–grass tussocks are broken up and sward height is reduced
Flammable litter has been largely removed
Grazing through most of the growing season kills coppiced birch stumps
Birch seedlings are dramatically reduced in number
Bracken has greatly diminished vigour
Significant savings have been achieved on management expenditure

A report on the Passfield Common monitoring to date has been produced (and is available from the Heathlands Project Officer) and many of the findings are similar to those of other heathland managers elsewhere in the country. Grazing has improved this site dramatically, allowing many species to flourish, and has greatly reduced future expenditure on short and long term management. In addition, it has not been necessary to use chemicals at all on the site. The reasons for this are obvious if the natural processes are considered.

It is often assumed that natural succession of heathland, bogs, fens, marshes, ponds, chalk grassland, meadows and other open habitats will eventually lead to dark, closed canopy woodland and therefore all of Britain was once covered with this habitat. The majority certainly would have been but it is usually forgotten that various natural processes such as grazing affected the vegetation so the original forest was highly diverse. Storms are probably the only natural factor that humans have been unable to interfere with. Others, such as regular flooding of river valleys, the frequency of fires, natural tree falls and the very nature of the soils and water tables are all influenced by man. In less disturbed wooded countries, the natural variation and diversity is much greater than in Britain.

The removal of native herbivores by man was partly compensated for by the domestication of some. Although natural behaviour was modified to a certain extent, the livestock allowed to roam the heaths would usually act like their wild ancestors. Many of the effects they had on their environment were also similar and grazing adapted plants and animals benefited. The number of commoners’ animals on the heaths, however, was much greater than natural populations would have been in the wildwood. This maintained the open nature of the heaths and prevented any natural succession back to woodland.

The economic climate, fragmentation of heaths and modern traffic have ended commoning and grazing almost everywhere. Although originally introduced by man, rabbits kept natural succession in check until myxamatosis wiped most out. The balance has therefore swung to the other extreme with much less grazing now taking place than would have naturally occurred in Britain.

The cessation of virtually all grazing by large herbivores, except deer, in most areas has led to the problems described earlier. Some regions, such as the upland moors and the New Forest, are conversely becoming overgrazed in places. Either extreme suits some species but neither allows the full range of plants and animals, native to a particular area, to be present.

If the right grazing regime is practised to suit all species, however, this management technique is by far the best option and easily the most cost effective in the long term. An initial expenditure of about £12000 by the Parish Council (through Stewardship Funding and grants from the Heathlands Project and Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council) will enable the Common to be stockproofed with adequate access points for locals (Appendix II). Subsequent grazing would cost a maximum of £3000 a year, even if a farmer had to be paid to put livestock on the site (the Heathlands Project, however, is now running a much cheaper grazing scheme). Without grazing, the tasks of – scrub and bracken control and vegetation cutting would cost in excess of £70000 over ten years (the time it would take to manage the whole Common at current expenditure levels) and then the process would have to be started all over again. A rough comparison of the likely costs of management on Silchester Common, with and without grazing, illustrates the savings that can be achieved (excluding the savings on work in Paniber Forest and Lordswood):

Grazing is the most environmentally friendly option as it would avoid the need to use any chemicals on Silchester Common, create ideal conditions for many plants and animals, keep invasive species in check, reduce the risk of severe fires and solve the long term management problems. Most other management techniques are merely trying to recreate, in a less satisfactory and more artificial way, the effects of grazing anyway. The rest of this report summarises a grazing feasibility study, carried out by the Parish Council, with the assistance of the Heathlands Project and English Nature, once it was decided that this was the best option for the site.

6: GRAZING FEASIBILITY STUDY

i. Fencing. This is the biggest problem for those wishing to graze commons where fast roads run past. Fencing across any part of a common requires the permission of the Secretary of State for the Environment. Fencing against the boundaries does not require permission and it is actually a legal requirement for adjacent landowners to fence against livestock, if they are causing a problem, and not the duty of the commoners. In this way most commons already have parts of their boundaries fenced (Figure 8). The legal status given to commons was originally to protect the commoners’ rights from landowners taking advantage of the various Enclosure Acts, from the mid 18th Century on, and fencing out commoners so the land could be converted to some other use, such as building, farming or forestry.

There is often opposition to the fencing of common land, for perfectly valid reasons, such as worries about access, although the ecological advantages to be gained from grazing should not be ignored. Neither should the legal rights of the commoners, as it was to protect them that Common Laws exist in the first place. Most have the right to graze animals on Silchester Common but this right has been effectively removed by the dangers of fast roads, both to the animals and the traffic. The Parish endeavoured to find out, before any definite plans were made to fence anywhere on the common, what sort of problems a fence would create for local residents and how these could be reduced by modifying these proposals.

An invisible fencing system, favoured by the Open Spaces Society, is currently being tested. This involves cables hidden underground which give a mild shock to animals fitted with a special collar (ie it does not shock people, dogs or wildlife) who come too close. The Parish Council is awaiting the outcome of these tests with interest.

In the meantime, several alternative routes for standard fencing were investigated to see if grazing was a practical proposition on this site. Stiles, bridle gates, field gates and cattle grids were proposed at various points along the fence line to allow access.

Figure 8 shows the final version of the proposed fence line after full consultation (Appendix II) and the incorporation of various suggestions. The actual fencing which requires permission from the Secretary of State is illustrated in Figure 9, the remainder being situated off the Common. A total of 93 ha (230 acres) is included within this fence (about two thirds heathland or associated habitats and the rest woodland of various types).

ii. Grazing Regime. Cattle are the ideal choice of grazing animal, especially primitive breeds which do well on such poor land and are the least far removed by selective breeding from their wild ancestors. The Heathlands Project will be able to provide suitable livestock, such as Angus, Highland or Hereford Cross cattle, together with care and supervision by an experienced stockman. Water is not a problem because the brook never appears to dry up.

Figure 8 – Proposed Fence Line Specifications

The density of animals should be low enough to leave some parts relatively unaffected, but sufficiently high to create habitat and species diversity and control aggressive plants. The weather and subsequent plant growth affect the number of animals that can be put onto a heath but about thirty cattle would be suitable in the first year. Work on Passfield Common has indicated that a period of hard grazing in the first year, followed by varying periods of lighter grazing in subsequent years produces the best response from the plants and wildlife of badly neglected sites.

Once the worst of the scrub invasion is in hand New Forest ponies (which do not eat much birch) could be introduced as these animals are excellent for controlling purple moor–grass and gorse. There was some opposition to this idea from horse enthusiasts in Silchester, however, and further consultation would be required before ponies could be considered. Cattle do more or less the same job as ponies but it usually requires more of them, as their digestive systems are more efficient and hence they need to eat less. Sheep grazing, practised in some areas such as East Anglia, has been ruled out for Silchester Common because of the number of dogs walked on the site.

Spring and summer are the best times to graze but long periods without grazing are important, especially during the growing season, as natural herds of herbivores would tend to wander off to other parts of the countryside, giving any one site a rest. These breaks in grazing could be as long as a year in the future. When no grazing is taking place the various access points can be opened up by removing, or tying open, gates.

iii. Public Access. Only local residents can decide, on the basis of their own use of the Common, whether the proposed fence line offers them suitable access or not. During the consultation process (Appendix II) the Parish Council has listened to many suggestions for improving public access. It is not the intention of the Parish Council to keep anyone off the property or restrict walkers, riders or any other user in any way.

It is hoped that control of some of the scrub, dense bracken and tall grass tussocks will also help to improve general access. The fence will only include barbed wire where this is already present on existing fences or is not likely to be obtrusive. The rest will be plain wire and wire netting (to New Forest specifications), which is obviously safer and has the additional advantage of preventing dogs from running onto the road. Dogs will not have to be kept on leads, as they cause few problems with cattle, and conversely the cattle are not dangerous to dogs or humans, the animals to be used having been reared on a public site in east Hampshire.

iv. Monitoring. As with Passfield Common, the effects of grazing on the ecology of the site will be monitored at least twice a year by independent consultants, to determine whether the desired changes are taking place. A system of fixed and random quadrat recording will indicate what effects the livestock are having on the vegetation and allow decisions about any alterations to the grazing regime to be made more confidently. Wildlife recording will also take place, through the use of standard transects for birds and butterflies for instance. Reports produced as a result of this monitoring will be made available to anyone interested.

APPENDIX I:  REGISTER OF COMMONERS’ RIGHTS FOR SILCHESTER COMMON