The company wants to put up the fence on part of the Wythburn Fells
Campaigners are fighting to stop a water company putting up a fence across open land in the Lake District.
The Friends of the Lake District and the Open Spaces Society have condemned plans to fence off an area on fells near Thirlmere.
United Utilities said it wants to erect the fencing on common land at the south-western end of the reservoir, around Whelpside, Steel End, West Head, Armboth, Bleaberry and Wythburn Fells. The area enclosed would be 866ha (2,140 acres).
The company said it needs to control sheep and other stock grazing to reduce erosion which is affecting its reservoirs. Structures, including fences, on common land have to be approved by the Planning Inspectorate.
Kate Ashbrook, general secretary of the Open Spaces Society, said: “We strongly object to this intrusion into this wild, unspoilt landscape of the Lake District national park.
“Not only is fencing an eyesore, but it prevents people from roaming freely over the whole area as is their right. The Open Spaces Society won public access to the commons around Thirlmere in 1897 when it campaigned for such clauses in the Manchester Corporation Act which led to the construction of Thirlmere.
“Subsequently parliament gave the public rights of access to all commons in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. We are not prepared to see those rights infringed.
“Although the application is for 15 years, we strongly suspect that the fencing will remain for longer. We are dismayed that UU appears not to have developed its long-term plans for the area. Instead of using this drastic means of restricting stock, UU should gather more data and assess whether there are other solutions.”
Ian Brodie, former director of the Friends of the Lake District and representative of the Open Spaces Society, said: “The proposed fence will be one of the greatest threats the Lake District has faced to the traditional openness and freedom of the fells.
“It will impact on many walkers each year and it appears to run contrary to the principles of the bid for World Heritage inscription which United Utilities is supposedly supporting.”
Paul Hesp
14 January 2015Judging by the picture the area is not unspoiled but completely deforested. If the fence is provided with styles (as is often the case here in Austria) people can still go wherever they want. But a fenced-in area would also offer a great opportunity for planting the area with native trees, reducing erosion even further. The right to roam in the regenerating forest would of course have to be restricted for at least a decade...
Steve Carver
14 January 2015While I’ve not seen the full plans for the proposed exclusion area I have talked to United Utilities staff about this project, and it seems like good common sense to me, and is an opportunity to extent their experience from Wild Ennerdale. The advantages will be lower grazing pressures on the hills with associated benefits of native tree regeneration, increased infiltration rates, reduced runoff, erosion and sediment yields, reduced sedimentation or rivers and lakes; leading most likely to reduced downstream flooding and better water quality. The landscape will be better for it too and will look more natural, more wild and provide a haven for wildlife and so increase biodiversity (contrary to the objections put forward above by OSS). There are some disbenefits of course. There will be an extra fence, but there are plenty of fences in the LDNP anyway and fences are less intrusive and less visible than dry-stone walls. There ought to be little or no impact on access and right to roam if UU put in stiles and/or gates at appropriate locations. There will, of course, be restrictions to commoners rights to graze their animals, and perhaps UU ought to compensate for this. While normally being suspicious of big businesses that restrict the rights of ordinary people, in this instance it would seem that the advantages of the proposal in terms of improvements to landscape aesthetics, wildlife and habitats, recreational opportunity and ecosystem services, outweigh these concerns. Nonetheless, bottom up consultation should occur. The Lake District is by no means a “Wilderness” – it is at best “wild land” and subject to a wide range of human impacts from towns and villages, roads, plantation forest, reservoirs and grazing. In the longer term the proposed fence and regeneration of native woodland will actually do much to improve the wildness other qualities of this corner of the Lakes.
Mike
14 January 2015No, no a thousand time no. What little common land there is left has to be protected and fought for. United Utilities has 'form' in the way it restricts access and indeed in the way it manages the reservor. There are still unanswered question over its role in the floods that devastated Cockermouth and whether its actions were a contributory factor. They are not to be trusted. And let us remember that they only acquired Thirlmere and its environs as a result of privatisation at knock down prices. They got a national asset on the cheap that had been paid for by taxpayers and ratepayers
Ken Brown
15 January 2015"a fenced-in area would also offer a great opportunity for planting the area with native trees" Were is the profit in that?
The right to roam means that people can go anywhere on the common, not just sticking to paths which is the only place they might put a stile...
Steve
15 January 2015I've noticed more and more new fencing going in over the last few months in the Lakes and as I like to go wherever I want rather than sticking to a path it's getting intrusive. I can't help thinking there's more to it than just stock control, more like people control. I know we have a right to roam but there's nothing to say you'll keep it ...
Michael
15 January 2015You're dead right Steve,
all over the N E part of the Lakes United Utilities are stopping us from walking where we've gone on foot for decades and some favourite places to spend a short respite beside streams have been VERBOTEN!
Meinster
22 January 2015Good, incisive post Steve Carver.
There are aesthetic, economic and environmental benefits to be gleaned from this approach. To dismiss it out of hand as an infringement on personal freedoms would be short-sighted folly IMHO.
Steve Carver
01 February 2015@grough I added quite a long, considered and informed reply to Mike last week... might you consider moderating and publicising please?