Below is a copy of the letter we sent to the Planning Inspectorate.
Dear Sir or Madam,
Commons Act 2006 s38 Application by United Utilities to fence common land near Thirlmere Whelpside, Steel End, West Head, Armboth, Bleaberry and Wythburn Common CL413
The Foundation for Common Land is a registered charity supporting active pastoral systems for the contribution that these make to cultural, environmental and economic wellbeing. In England, although only 3% of the countryside is common land, some 88% of it this is nationally or internationally designated for its wildlife, archaeological or landscape features. No other agricultural land-use provides such diverse public benefits.
We object to this application because of the harm that it will cause to the traditional management, landscape, cultural heritage and enjoyment of this land. The base-line data on water quality for justifying nearly 10km of fencing is extremely weak, and the case poorly made. We consider that such an intrusion is out of keeping with the national park and proposed World Heritage Site inscription.
The land is registered common land, and the construction of such a fence would severely impact on traditional management practices using hefted flocks. Indeed we consider that commoning is central to the cultural interest of the Lake District, at the very heart of the cultural landscape for which the Lake District is world-famous.
We are opposed to the compartmentalisation of the landscape. The fence would represent a modern intrusion into an otherwise untamed landscape, interfering with the enjoyment, sense of remoteness and tranquillity, and the quality of recreational access across unrestricted terrain.
Although the justification for constructing this fence is ostensibly for improving water quality, we note that there is virtually no baseline data which can substantiate such a case, nor against which the success of such works could be monitored. There appears to be no water-quality data for tributaries upon which such a claim can be grounded.
Accordingly we consider that this application should be refused. If the applicants intend to pursue this proposal, we call on them to provide hard, empirical data to justify their contention, and to embark upon a joint win-win approach with all interested parties, in keeping with the neighbourly and collaborative ethos of common land.
Yours faithfully
