Ploughing of field east of quarry

Wed 17 Feb 2021, 09:54 (last edited on Wed 17 Feb 2021, 10:02)

Having read Mr Hobill's comments, now, withdrawn.

Wed 17 Feb 2021, 07:57 (last edited on Wed 17 Feb 2021, 09:32)

post deleted

Tue 16 Feb 2021, 19:09

Most of the postings here rather miss the point that the strips were originally set aside for the benefit of flora and fauna. Humans then trespassed onto them, negating their intended purpose.

Tue 16 Feb 2021, 17:26

 'Full many a flower is born to blush unseen / and waste its sweetness on the desert air.' (Or so it was evidently meant to, but how fortunate we have been.)

'Charlbury welcomes walkers', but perhaps this should now come with a caveat that certain routes have (literally) narrowed down in the past few years, leading to an intensification of mud in wet weather.  Private Property notices have proliferated - including that amusing 'Bull in field' one which is duplicated on two adjacent gates. At the same time the town has grown and our population has increased, encouraging more people to drive out into the country for walks, where they may tangle on the road with bicyclists, now hugely increased in number, or pairs of pony-riders. Yes, the managed landscape is beautiful, but more clemency on the part of the large landowners whose land surrounds us would be welcome.

Tue 16 Feb 2021, 15:30

Yes, Alan, that's the kind of thing I was thinking. I'll take it up w local councillors.

Tue 16 Feb 2021, 14:44

The lord gives and the lord takes away. The solace and joy this field edge brought during the  summer of 2020 is inestimable. Orchids, scabious, cranesbill, betony, bugle, centaury, harebells, toadflax, thyme, vetch, many more plants, herbs, grasses, wildflowers, as well as different species of birds, butterflies, bees, dragonflies. 'I know a bank where the wild thyme grows ...' alas, no longer.

Tue 16 Feb 2021, 11:20

Maybe the town council could offer to buy the strip of land from the Ditchley Estate as it is of benefit to all people living in the parish.  Could be paid for by a bit on the Council tax, same as we are paying for the Community Center.

Tue 16 Feb 2021, 10:05 (last edited on Tue 16 Feb 2021, 10:05)

Thanks for the further update, Jim. Good news for the birds (I have seen some very twitchy binoculared people along that strip!), and Robert Hobill's right of course, but bad news for Charlbury people. 

What I was suggesting was a constructive dialogue with Robert Hobill/Ditchley about these field edges. There are hundreds of instances nationally and several locally where popular unofficial walking routes have been given permissive path status. 

This is a conversation worth having, while bearing in mind the needs of the farmer and of wildlife. 

Tue 16 Feb 2021, 10:00

Philip – May I suggest that you re-read Robert Hobill's statement – lolz, etc. Of course I read it, shall I suggest you re-read mine, etc? This could roll and roll into the Grease pit or whatever it's called these days.

Tue 16 Feb 2021, 09:56

Harriet – a footpath is signed with a footpath marker, a bridleway with a bridleway marker. If there isn't one, it's not public access – I imagine most people on this thread are well aware of this, thank you, although there are dozens of legal footpaths and bridleways in and around Charlbury where there are no markers, as I presume you are also aware.

Mon 15 Feb 2021, 21:34

Thank you, Jim, for the update. But that is extremely sad news. It greatly decreases the walking possibilities round Charlbury. I think this a more severe loss than the field edge by the quarry. If there was any way to get the estate to review their policy, I and many others would be grateful.

Mon 15 Feb 2021, 21:01

A further update on the headland between Hundley Way & Ditchley Rd, mentioned in earlier posts.  Louise Spicer has asked me to explain that this headland will be ploughed out, as soon as it is dry enough, for the same reason as the Ditchley Rd to Quarry Lane section already removed. The only exception to this will be a metre wide strip from Ditchley Rd up to the corner of the hedge.  Louise has been involved for 18 years in a "farmland bird feeding network" project in this location & Ditchley are leaving the access strip to allow the project to continue.  There will be no other field margin remaining once the ploughing is completed.

Mon 15 Feb 2021, 19:16

Thank you Robert (via Jim), we now have an answer to my question.

Mon 15 Feb 2021, 18:39

"If there isn't one, it's not public access." Well, it's not quite that simple. Many public rights of way originally became so by dint of common usage over long periods of time anyway. Some landowners are happy for people to use these routes, some aren't. Some create permissive paths. Humans moving around the landscape create what are called 'desire paths' – sure, yes, not always legally. Often these are about creating practical 'loops' as James hints. This year the greater footfall because of the pandemic has exacerbated things – as the dreadful mud in places such as the Cornbury Path route to Southill exemplifies. And there are deep issues here about the land and public access to it.

Meanwhile many public rights of way have also been lost to the depredations of landowners over time - as the Ramblers Association's 'Don't Lose Your Way' campaign over the last couple of years has attested. In fact, more than one such path crosses the estate we're discussing here. And of course many public rights of way get obliterated, fenced across, compromised or ploughed by landowners – we're lucky that there are only a few such cases in our immediate area. 

This is clearly an emotive issue, and it's a real shame that the legal framework has created a situation where local people, accustomed to using certain routes respectfully, are being blamed for the loss of wildlife margins. I appreciate the dilemma Mr Hobill faces. It would be great if James's suggestions could be considered.

Mon 15 Feb 2021, 18:28

James, 

May I suggest that you re-read Robert Hobill's statement. Grants have been paid for the 6 metre field margins to support flora and fauna, not to provide humans with additional footpaths and cycle tracks. It is human intrusion / trespassing that has caused the ones close to Charlbury to be ploughed up as their misuse risks compromising the wider application.

Re "It's likely hundreds of former users of this route will read this forum post and they will quite likely continue to use it" I think that you overestimate the number of users of the route and the forum (good though it is).

Mon 15 Feb 2021, 18:06

James a footpath is signed with a footpath marker, a bridleway with a bridleway marker. If there isn't one, it's not public access. Which leads to another point - cyclists shouldn't be riding bikes on footpaths.

Mon 15 Feb 2021, 16:50

PS Does anyone know if they plan to do the same to the route that does a dog-leg between Hundley Way (just after the last house, Hundley House) and Ditchley Rd (by Ambleside Farm)? 

(Then I would really cry.)

Mon 15 Feb 2021, 16:45

As an avid walker and (off-road) cyclist, and an unashamed addict of OS maps, I thought I knew all the local bridleways and footpaths, so I was surprised to learn that this route wasn't a footpath at all and very disappointed it has been been closed. It's good to hear Robert's reasoning and can I suggest (Jim) that you get him to post a message to that effect at either end of the closed route? It's likely hundreds of former users of this route will read this forum post and they will quite likely continue to use it, being a) unaware it isn't actually a footpath and b) unaware of the reasons for the removal of the route. 

Can you also ask him if he would be open to discussion with the Town and/or County Council about the possibility of converting that route into a footpath and, once the farm has joined the UK’s Countryside Stewardship Scheme, having his 6m verges between a footpath and the ploughed field?

The route had been used by hundreds of locals for many, many years – probably in complete innocence as it did look like a footpath. It forms an important connection/loop for walkers, especially for elderly residents and children who can't walk too far, and dog walkers who don't have the time to walk all the way on the permitted route to Dustfield Farm/the Salt Way and back along Ditchley Rd. 

I am one of a number of volunteers working on the Town Council's 'Environment Working Group' where a bunch of us have been tasked with looking at making local journeys easier and greener. Re-opening this popular leisure route is of interest and importance both to us as well as the wider community. Thanks, Jim, you have my number.

Mon 15 Feb 2021, 12:46

Again, a case of the minority spoiling it not only for the majority, but causing the loss of wild flowers and the wildlife they attract.

Mon 15 Feb 2021, 12:18

The Farm Manager at Ditchley has asked me to post this explanation for ploughing out these margins on the forum....as follows.

Dear all,

The farm at Ditchley has been In the Countryside Stewardship Agreement for 20 years. This is an EU environmental initiative to compensate land owners for loss of farm production to conservation. The 6 metre field margins were established with grasses and wildflower seed mix as specified in the Higher Level Scheme and under the terms of the agreement cannot be used as access for people or vehicles. Sadly, the 6 metre strips close to Charlbury and Stonesfield have suffered damage through trespass from walkers and horses, especially during recent months. This despite often being close to or alongside designated public footpaths. This damage to the margins can lead to large financial penalties as has happened in the past to the farm.

On leaving the EU, Ditchley has made an application to join the UK’s Countryside Stewardship Scheme; the application will be thoroughly inspected and the rules stringently enforced ahead of approval. I cannot jeopardise the authorisation of the whole estate’s Countryside Agreement by including these trafficked strips in the application. Therefore, these particular margins have to revert to agricultural cropping.

Robert Hobill,

Farm Manger,

Ditchley Park

Mon 15 Feb 2021, 08:32

Just to clear up a point on the compaction of ground; uncultivated (i.e. unploughed) land is not likely to be compacted by walkers/horses/bikes, because its innate structure gives resilience. Ploughed ground has no structure and is therefore at greater risk of compaction from footfall. 

Mon 15 Feb 2021, 08:26

Ha yes Leah - but if they had ploughed up the road in front of me I might have taken the hint that I should not have been there in the first place. And then learned to look at my map!!

Sun 14 Feb 2021, 17:58

Map reading Steve, you got lost in Carterton!  

Sun 14 Feb 2021, 15:25

Yep - by ploughing up the margins it seems

Sun 14 Feb 2021, 10:27

Much of the responsibility for this loss seems to lie with horse-riders who see a field margin as a nice, grassy stretch for a gallop.  Hoof-prints are the most obvious evidence of public use, and some riders clearly feel free to go anywhere they can, not simply on designated bridle-paths.  Is there some way of educating them into reading maps?

Sun 14 Feb 2021, 07:43

No. We live in a managed environment.

Sat 13 Feb 2021, 23:49

None of which explains the felling of large numbers of trees or crude cutting of hedges across a wide area, including ecologically sensitive areas.  Do you speak for Ditchley estate?

Sat 13 Feb 2021, 21:29

The trustees of the Ditchley estate have long held strong credentials for the management of the estate. There is a great deal of active responsible management for the benefit of wildlife and the environment, much of which is not published for a variety of reasons.

Field margins were the subject of discussion on this forum last year, when I tried to explain the likelihood that trespassing upon these would likely result in their loss. Alas this has come to pass, and the assumed access has jeopardised their existence.

To those who enjoy the countryside within which we live by compliance with guidance of The Countryside Commission and Ramblers Association and the rights of responsible landowners will ensure we can all enjoy the rights of access across private land. We have abundant footpaths to enjoy and upon which to take air and exercise.

Loss of field margins created for wildlife due to irresponsible human behaviour is not the fault of Ditchley Estate, the criteria for their maintenance has been undermined by others.

Sat 13 Feb 2021, 15:37

I was going to edit my post but can't see how to, at this time of year you'll also get a lot of compaction from the ground being walked on (horses, people, bikes), Jenny will agree with this. I think farmers can be fined for damage to soil, which is why machinery has to stay off fields if it's too wet. If the margin is compacted and therefore damaged the government (DEFRA?) won't care how it got like it, they'll just issue a fine.

Sat 13 Feb 2021, 15:29

As the old quarry is a designated SSSI on geological, not botanical, grounds, there should be no reason to exclude this field margin from the grant. 

Sat 13 Feb 2021, 14:46

Brigid that is my point. If everybody who has commented on this thread said "I've been there, haven't done any damage", you're still looking at 8 people. It's the cumulative damagee that's the problem, more so unfortunately if you add in children running around.

It has been a very wet winter, but there are plenty of cases across the UK of increased lockdown use causing closure of permissive paths due to increased use, examples of deer being forced further into woodland where in one case they then destroyed a rare butterfly nesting site. 

I don't know why Ditchley have ploughed it up but increased access by people who don't think they're doing any harm is a big problem, more so in more urban areas than here, but even so still a problem in rural locations.

Sat 13 Feb 2021, 14:06

Bridleways, yes...but horse-riders have made frequent use of the footpaths and field margins this past autumn and winter, churning up the mud to the detriment of walkers.

As an unashamed former visitor to the lower field margin of the field to the east of the quarry, I was delighted by the orchids, wild carrot, cranesbill and other flowers, and did not feel that my occasional presence threatened them.  If the public are banned from  discreetly visiting field margins (rather than, say, picnicking or riding bicycles or horses over them), who is to know what's flourishing there?

Sat 13 Feb 2021, 13:47

The EU reason for set aside was to prevent the over-production of cereals to the EU market.  Because cereals are difficult and costly to store they were being sold at knock down prices to African countries and completely undermining the local systems of agriculture in those countries.  

Interesting about the new grant not being available to sites adjoining an SSSI.

Sat 13 Feb 2021, 11:31

I agree with Harriet.

Farming is a business and will understandably respond to incentives/disincentives from the EU/UK Government to farm in particular ways.  If field margins are incentivised to promote wildlife diversity, then walkers should absolutely not be using them - this is not what they are for.  No other business would allow unrestricted access to its assets and be happy to suffer a loss - however small - to its level of production.

We are very fortunate to have plenty of legal footpaths and bridleways and open spaces round Charlbury  - we should stick to them.

Sat 13 Feb 2021, 10:27

Something that's worth thinking about and may or may not be the case here is damage to ecosystems by increased lockdown footfall. You as an individual may see nothing on your walks round the field edge off the footpath,  but multiply you many times and there'll be a knock on effect as wildlife moves away from increased traffic areas. 

And everyone should anyway be walking on the footpaths, not on the field margins

Sat 13 Feb 2021, 10:15

There's useful information about field margins and grants here: https://www.gov.uk/countryside-stewardship-grants/flower-rich-margins-and-plots-ab8

I notice it says that this can't be used adjacent to SSSIs or or other botanically valuable sites as identified on the Environmental Information Map as there is potential for contamination of natural plant communities.

Since the quarry includes a SSSI, might that be the problem with the edge of the field? Has Ditchley also ploughed up other field edges? 

Sat 13 Feb 2021, 10:07

Perhaps it would be prudent to respond to the facts, which can only come from Ditchley, rather than immediately judge them as poor environmentalists / landowners / custodians / farmers?

Sat 13 Feb 2021, 09:58

The tiny pink Centaury grew on that border, it was a highlight of last year’s dog walking to see it open in the sunshine there alongside the other wildflowers.

Sat 13 Feb 2021, 09:26

EU subsidies for "set-aside" allowed field margin strips to be included.  A margin strip would have to be 20m wide.  Margin strips could be counted in "rotational set-aside" and moved from field to field.  This subsidy support was absorbed as a part of UK Government's "Single Farm Payment" and the UK Govt. was reducing the amount of subsidy given for set-aside even before UK left EU.

Over to someone else to research whether margin strips are now included in Countryside Stewardship grants.  It sounds as though they aren't.  Very sad.

Sat 13 Feb 2021, 08:26 (last edited on Sat 13 Feb 2021, 08:26)

The Ditchley estate and the HDH Wills Trust make much of their environmental credentials, particularly with regard to wildlife. See, for example, https://www.ditchley.com/ditchley-park/sustainability, where we can read about there being "as little cultivation as possible" and "Ditchley provides a unique habitat in its grasslands and forests ... with many species present that are not found elsewhere."

There's no doubt that footfall flattens the ground, but it was very clear last spring that people walked a narrow line between the grassy meadow boundaries and the field itself. The meadow had a multitude of flowers (including orchids and wild thyme), which in turn attracted a wide variety of insects, including multiple species of butterfly. Walkers certainly can't be blamed for the loss of this. Also, there's an obvious solution here: protect the meadow fringes and allow a permissive footpath alongside. Or would that reduce the income of the estate by, say, 0.05%..?

Sat 13 Feb 2021, 07:51

Thanks all for your input. 

Amelia, I too would like to know more about why fines are threatened, if that is Ditchley's motivation. Are you able to put me in touch with someone at Ditchley who can give us a definitive answer? Although the land is theirs, to do with as they will, I'm hopeful they would at least prefer the correct reason to circulate locally. 

Fri 12 Feb 2021, 21:01

Fined by whom, and for what?

Fri 12 Feb 2021, 19:41

We have been advised by an employee of Ditchley that they have had to plough the verge of the fields to avoid being fined. The verges are usually left for wildlife but have been constantly used as footpaths and trampled by horses to such an extent that the whole area was flattened through excessive use. I don’t believe this has anything to do with brexit. Perhaps people should just keep to the designated footpaths.

Fri 12 Feb 2021, 19:28

I'd always guessed that they occasionally ploughed up to the boundaries to remove the unofficial footpaths so as to demonstrate there are no rights of way being created? Though agree that it's a pity to see set aside field margins being removed - there were many wild flowers in that area. Unfortunately the hedge cutting I believe is simply the most cost effective method of cutting the hedges - thankfully they'd doing it before spring and when the birds start nesting.

Fri 12 Feb 2021, 18:55

I was really sad to see that too. I believe the field margins were left as a result of an EU regulation - so sadly this may be a local Brexit side effect. I am surprised that Ditchley have done this though - along with the 3 machines lacerating the hedges that I saw in the field below the Banbury Hill woods last week. I thought they were generally known for being a bit more environmentally conscious in their farming techniques.

Fri 12 Feb 2021, 18:48

It appears that Ditchley has been particularly zealous in cutting down hedges and also trees too.  It would be good to know why; it doesn’t seem particularly pretty, to say the least.

Fri 12 Feb 2021, 18:24

Does anyone know why the field beyond the quarry, towards Ditchley, has been ploughed so tight to the edges? It's been done in the last few days. 

For at least the twelve years that I've lived in Charlbury, the field margins have always been left several metres wide, which has allowed allsorts of wild flowers and wildlife habitat to thrive. This has now all gone!