Hands Off Hartlebury Common

The Petition



In the picture above, freshly exposed pebbles are shown exposed for the first time. This is happening at an alarming rate, cut faces of strata and sections appearing. The "Experts" say that walkers have done this damage? This claim beggars belief.

Please follow this link below to see photographic evidence of the damage being done.





These are the main objections of "Worcestershire Commons Association"

1     The appearance of the common today is the result of nearly 100 years of non interference.  The common already has enough

heathland, the common does not need to be managed because it would be overgrown with trees by now if this was the case.

2 We belive that the incentive for the work at Hartlebury Common is financial and its welfare is secondary.

3 We believe that the scale of the work is completely disproportionate to so-called conservation

4 The common as it is, is mutually supportive to the different eco-systems within it.

There are plenty of areas already for the heath to grow should it want to.

6 The proposals and management are  poorly thought out and do not recognise the spirit of true nature conservation, or restoration.

7   The consultative process has not observed "due diligence"

8   We think heathland is incorrect for this place and compared to the vast area of countryside it sits in, it is an overvalued concept

Oak trees particularly are under threat from global warming, climate change and disease and should be preserved

10 We believe that Hartlebury Common will be a greater fire risk because of the proposed changes so we challenge its suitability for


11 We believe that Worcestershire County Council have assumed rights of ownership of the common and therefore are guilty of theft

13 We believe that work carried out at the common by WCC is defined as criminal damage as they do not have title to the common

14 We believe that WCC are guilty of deliberate misrepresentation and fraudulent behaviour

15 We believe that serious damage is being done to the common as shown by erosion.

16 We believe that bad management and practice has created the growth of the very species of flora and fauna that supposedly WCC want to eradicate - brambles and bracken are good examples of this.

17 We believe that grazing cattle will destroy valuble and desirable flora and fauna, the very reason that public grazing was stopped as claimed by the council, a contradiction

At the supposed Enquiry....

90 people attended the meeting over a period 12 hours

40 people voted

26 got the necessary landslide victory.

So much for democracy then. Our Association has managed to engage with over 2500 members of the public in little over four  weeks since the 27th of May 2011. This is what would be considered due diligence on our part to engage with public opinion.The ratio of objection to approval is currently on average 400-1 against these proposals.

The only people in Worcestershire who think think that normal public consultation has taken place is "Worcestershire County Council" and their chosen sycophants "Hartlebury Commons Group". They make excellent bedfellows though.

Bracken is the real success story at the common so far but it's ok,

operatives spraying Asulox can manage the situation, read more about

bracken and heaths here... http://www.forestryjournal.co.uk/pdf/Bracken.pdf

These trees are to go






This historic pine plantation that once graced this noble site.


"Natural" England and WCC's claim to legally carry out this work is subject to their agreement to subscribe to......

"National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs)"

Worcestershire County Council's own website gushes.........

"In June 1992, the Earth Summit was held in Rio

de Janeiro. Over 150 countries, including the United Kingdom, signed the

Convention on Biological Diversity, a commitment to conserving and

sustaining global biodiversity. In 1994 the UK Government launched the UK Biodiversity Action Plan

and established the UK Biodiversity Steering Group, who produced

national criteria and objectives for the selection and conservation of a

priority list of habitats and species.  The report also recommended the

production of Local Biodiversity Action Plans."

Unfortunately what is being done is with complete disregard and deliberate re-interpretation of the 1992  Earth Summit in Rio de

Janeiro. Have a look here and dig about a bit, see what you think...


And here also  http://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/?a=cbd-08

The spirit of the Rio Accord is about maintaining the diversity on planet earth, through the most minimul of intervention, not

cutting down 120 and 300 year old oaks as if they were weeds.

One word that is used wherever you navigate around the site, is sustainability and natural, two things you could not attribute to the

work at Hartlebury, or to any other sites around the entire country that have fallen victim to this lunacy.

Ultimately, the source of cash for these schemes originates from the pockets of  ordinary people through taxation; the world bank chucks some in as well and companies like BP who then have favourable status, even though they are one of the worst polluters of natural enviroments. This re-distributed wealth is then available for "Qualifying Schemes"

Hartlebury Common, apparently, was deforested by Iron Age
settlers trying to create arable farming, they did this only to find that the common was comprised mainly of sand and fairly useless for agriculture. Stupid Iron Age people.

We now have fresh red sand, which has been stable for thousands of years sucumbing to rain, wind and gravity flowing down

disintegrating strata. There has been more erosion in 6 months than there has been in recorded history.

If prehistoric people produced a landscape WCC aspires to and claims, deforested, then the archaeological site would not be

here, neither most of the common that we see today.


The image on the left was taken in 2007. Clearly you can see

juvenile trees and woodland but also heath. Significantly there are open areas where there is neither. The open space is available to developing heath but remains open as it does to this day, strange. Unmanaged, this site is a flourishing habitat and does not need a Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)



If the three plantations at the centre of the common above are felled, the

natural growth you would have left, does not demonstrate rampant,

domination by woodland, even after 100yrs of  so called "neglect" and non management

Natural England have been involved with numerous schemes, like this one, the length and breadth of the land. Have a look

at this link to get a preview of what is in store for Hartlebury Common... http://www.self-willed-land.org.uk/heath_madness.htm#Hartlebury%20Common

The whole proposal is desperately flawed, ill thought out and worst, motivated for all the wrong reasons. Britain's oak trees are under threat from disease and drought, see articles here http://www.woodlandheritage.org/news/68-news/301-britains-native-oak-under-threat.html

The flora and fauna which is supposed to justify this carnage exists elsewhere in pockets of natural wilderness accross the country.

Hartlebury Common's misfortune is to be an easy target to the intrusion by Natural England who want to create a wildlife theme park.

steve mccarron