Lindow Common Ranger Paul Hughes has unearthed a photo of the Common taken in the 1930's. It is a view that will be familiar to residents and shows the Memorial Plinth with the old workhouse in the background.
Paul said "The current view is very different and what is striking about the old photo is that there were virtually no trees. That habitat, originally kept under control by grazing, allowed the development of mires and lowland heath that in turn encouraged the proliferation of frogs, toads, voles and ground nesting birds. This is how the Common was for 5000 years and the reason it is a Site of Special Scientific Interest and of regional and national importance."
Cheshire East Cllr Rod Menlove, who chairs the Lindow Common Advisory Group said "Old photos such as this are self-evidently of huge value and I know that Paul would be very grateful for any contributions to the collection. They help us as a Group and help residents, understand the purpose and work underway on the Common. There is no substitute for face-to-face dialogue so we invite concerned residents to join the next guided walk on Wednesday 19 June at 10.00am.
"We would be particularly interested to welcome the half dozen respondents to the previous article. Please come and join us at the car park opposite the Boddingtons Arms. Dog owners are welcome although this guided walk is not suitable for pets."
For any further information please contact [email protected].
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
Yes, the Common has been hijacked.
How lucky we are to have it.
I am not an Ornithologist and have no experience in Birdwatching but I have yet to see any evidence of ground nesting Birds, if they are in the area then they must feel comfortable enough with the environment as it is. I imagine the clearance of so many trees has deprived a great number of birds of suitable nest sites in recent years.
I fully support responsible dog ownership and at times am frustrated and annoyed when dog owners fail to pick up after their dogs. If Cheshire East want to help improve condition the at least two more bins should be provided in sites that are obviously in need of additional facilities.
Finally I accept that we must preserve Wetland but if this means depriving the whole community of this lovely area can the council prove that dogs/dog walkers are causing the kind of damage that will prevent it becoming a viable wetland area or would it be more accurate to suggest that in the fifty years since it was designated a SSSI it has largely been neglected.
Please do not allow the present and longstanding use of Lindow Common to become the scapegoat for inept management of the area over the last 5 decades. We the residents must not sit back and wait for events to overtake us, that is in all probability what the council want.
This whole scenario has the strong feel of a hidden agenda. Please don't be complacent. Non of us want's to see the Common fenced off so that it is all but inaccessible, this is common land gifted to the people of Wilmslow do not allow it to be hijacked by politicians.
From reading the local history books; it seems that the Common was already common land (and therefore the property of the people of Wilmslow ) well-before it was "gifted" to the people of Wilmslow by a few voluble (and wealthy) vested-interests who were mainly interested in seeing off the gypsies who had been resident on and around the Common for many years.
I have sent copies of my (small) collection of old photos of the Common to Paul; along with some recollections of this area from the 1950s, when it was possible for us kids to roll around in the long grass without getting covered in dog muck, let alone that from dogs driven to the area in 4x4s.
This has been very upsetting for them they've enjoyed the Common so much and are now too worried to go in case the dogs go off the path. I'm not sure how anyone could guarantee that a dog will stay on the path without a lead.
Nuisance canine behaviour is quite another matter - nobody wants that but often it's the good dog owners who clean up after the bad ones - we've often done it.
I see that the notice is no longer there and I'm wondering why. If there is no signage how do people who are new to the Common know that dogs have to keep to the paths and balls aren't allowed? Tom makes some excellent points. I'd like to know what damage can be caused by a throwing a ball in the open area or by a dog running around there so long as their owner is nearby. Of course if this is not the case and we have misunderstood the transient sign we would be delighted!
You said that you would like to "know what damage can be caused by a throwing a ball in the open area or by a dog running around there so long as their owner is nearby".
There are several rare and delicate plant species on the common, particularly in the wet heathland areas. Some of these plants are quite small and very susceptible to damage. Dogs being dogs, and in need of a good workout, often bound through these delicate areas of the common. The wet banks on the boggy areas are particularly susceptible to damage.
The banks of the Black Lake are also very sensitive. They are the home to protected water voles and there are also nesting water birds, including the popular grebes. The fencing around the lake looks awful, but helps to protect the banks from damage. The lake is part of the SSSI and is protected. As I understand it, the budget given to manage Lindow Common is pitiful which is probably why the fencing looks awful I doubt there was the money to put in place anything that would look better.
RE: Tom's comments
I agree that there needs to be more bins for dog mess bags. Over the past couple of years I've seen dog mess bags hanging off the backs of the same memorial benches Elinor's parents need to rest on; dog mess hanging off bushes and trees; piles of bags dumped at the entrance near the small Eastern entrance (recently cleared up); and a pile of bags dumped to the left of the driveway to a the house on the mini-roundabout on Racecourse Road. I'm not the dog poo fairy, but I have removed some of these myself.
I understand it, the council are ultimately taking their orders from DEFRA. With the SSSI status, the council have a responsibility to oversee the preservation of the delicate heathland flora and fauna. Much of the work to re-establish wider areas of heathland is initially very unsightly, but for a purpose. The scraping of the earth clears away the trees and bushes to allow the heather to re-establish. The heather seed (already in the soil) stays viable for decades. The grey dry areas that appear after scraping make the area look like it's been torched, but this is acidic sand that provides the ideal conditions for the heather to grow. It takes a few years for the area to recover, but it does. Government inspectors visited the site earlier this year, which is probably why there is effort at the moment to ask people to be careful about damage to the ecology.
I'll see if I can find out an answer about what the ground nesting birds are and post back.
I've asked a someone more knowledgeable than I about the bird life on the common. Birds nesting on the ground at the moment are willow warblers, chiffchaffs and reed buntings (all ground nesters). Robins, blackbirds and wrens have all been found nesting on the ground over the years, but whether they do or not probably depends on how much their habitat is disturbed.
The key issue seems to be damage done to the common, in my time walking I have not seen a single act which could be determined as wilful, the recent barbecue incident was I would hope an act of stupidity rather than wilful but I am not in a position to judge or comment more as I do not have all the facts. I cannot imagine that many if any of the people using the common would damage it in any way, so what exactly are we at odds over here?
Come Cheshire East please put before us the full facts and allow a free and open forum on this matter.
The area was donated for the benefit of Wilmslow residents 100 yr ago, is it listed in the current Common Land Register?
IMO CEC are not owners, but custodians/managers with Natural England utimately resp for SSSIs, who could impose penalties of several £K for illegal barbecues or dogs off leads.
Within minutes of starting the tour we observed uncollected dog turds around the car park noticeboard, with a dog poo bin close by.
During the 2hr walk I noticed the WTC Cllr take about 6 owners of unrestrained dogs, out of earshot, to quietly request they put their dogs on a lead, About 50% complied. A demand could have included a £3OK Natural England penalty for non-compliance.
Unlike The Carrss, a civic park, Lindow Common is a SSSI/Nature Reserve.
If you just want to exercise your dog off-lead and throw some balls to retrieve, there is the Carnival Field nearby.
There are signs, ignored, I understand the difficulties in bringing prosecutions but unless the council/police act then it will never be resolved.
I would like to point out that we own two dogs and have done for many years, we never leave the house without some bags to clear up after them be it the common or through the streets, we are not perfect but we try as hard as possible to ensure that we do allow a mess to be left on others doorsteps. I often find dog poo at the front of our house and along the road outside our neighbours.
In relation to dogs damaging the common by being off the lead, the vast majority of dogs are never more than a few metres from their owners. Dogs generally want to stay with their owners and follow around quite happily. On occasion I have seen owners playing with their dogs throwing balls into the heather, I would hope that if this is pointed out clearly to have a detrimental effect to the vegetation then people would see the reason why they should comply with such a rule. In general walkers keep to the tracks and dogs will naturally follow owners and tracks themselves. Draconian threats of fines, sanctions are not the way forward, information education will have far more effect.
Finally dogs on leads will not solve the dog poo problem on the common, if you have read the previous paragraphs you will see why, the same people who allow fouling on the streets in full view will not make any attempt to clean up in isolation on the common. If the authorities are so convinced that use of leads is the solution they need to put a better argument.
As for 'off lead' dogs always wanting to stay near their owners, that's probably true for well-trained dogs. But there are a lot of 'dog owners' who are not up to the task of providing leadership and training for their animals (treating them as little furry human friends rather than the pack animals that they are) and their dogs can be an absolute menace when off the lead. These are also the ones which, when on the lead, can be seen dragging their ineffectually protesting owners along, the dog straining against the leash. These owners should read and heed Vic Barlow's 'Dogfather' column in the local paper, or seek help with training their pets. As for the unauthorised removal of 'keep dogs on lead' signs allegedly by enraged dog owners... well if that's true it speaks volumes about the selfish, arrogant, anti-authority attitude of a certain type of owner.
Lindow Common is a rare habitat - and an SSSI. We should applaud the efforts of the wardens and rangers to try to return it the state shown in the photograph. We are not short of 'parks', but habitats like the Common (or rather, like the Common should be) are extremely rare and getting more so all the time.
In any given set of circumstances it easy to point at perceived wrongdoers as if the are representative of the majority, in my experience they rarely are. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the great majority of people who use the common and by and large they are walking dogs seem to me to be doing so responsibly, there are always those who abuse privileges and I cannot defend them in any way but please do not allow the acts of a relative few colour you're view. The common does need to be managed, if you take some of the arguments to a logical conclusion then it should be completely fenced off and no access allowed. This of course would be a nonsense. I am still awaiting a good argument as to damage that is being done by dogs, the wildlife In the area each and every year is subject to predation by foxes, feral cats to name a few. Please do not make dogs and dog owners out to be the villains here, CEC put up a new sign declaring it an SSSI fifty years after it was designated and all of a sudden it is war on dog owners! CEC have more than a few questions to answer on this matter. All of their work to "return" the area to heathland has destroyed some parts which were doubtless inhabited by a great many creatures, these were viable inhabitants the disruption will have had some impact on them, the scraped areas will take many years to recover and may never return to heathland proper. If you want to allow the whole place to be fenced off apart from perhaps a path around the lake then continue to believe that all the blame lies firmly at the feet of the dog owners and their dogs.
As I have stated before I smell a political rat, politicians on the whole are like bad magicians, always trying to distract us wanting us to look elsewhere whilst clumsily performing the "trick"
At the moment I feel they are trying to create a scenario which will allow them to fulfill their desires in "the public interest" maybe I'm being paranoid but experience has taught me than when politicians are distracting me I should keep a keen watch on events. As they say watch this space!
I accept most dog owners using Lindow Common are responsible re dog poo but letting a dog off lead in an SSSI is an offence. The ignorant/arrogant few transgressors are tainting all dog owners who use Lindow.Common and elsewhere.
I applaud Tom's caution of politicians, esp CEC Cllrs.
The adage is 'after shaking hands with any politician check the number of your fingers'.
CEC are known as a section 28G authority and are legally obliged to promote and enforce SSSI legislation (Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act).[1]
If they carry out any unauthorised work which damages the flora or fauna which are part reason for the SSSI status, then they can be liable to a fine of up to £20,000 (not £30K). From my understanding, they work closely with Natural England to decide on what steps are necessary to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSI. Note that "enhancement" does not mean for the enhancement of members of the public (dog walkers or not).
However, the act is also clear that any person (i.e. individual member the public), without reasonable cause damages the SSSI, the £20,000 fine would fall directly on the individual.[2]
Anyone's protests do not take precedence over the law!
Refs.
[1] http://bit.ly/175ATyz
[2] http://bit.ly/144uanq
Dog poo is a different matter entirely as Tom points out because you're then talking about dog owners who aren't law abiding. Leads have nothing to do with that - what you're talking about is decent enforcement or a ban on dogs. But put it this way, if badly behaved people leave litter (and broken glass) on the Common should you ban all people?
I suspect this subject will run and run but then that's not a bad thing. The Common is obviously very precious to all of us - for different reasons - and it would be good to reach an amicable conclusion on the forum at least.
My question is simple, and unaffected by any dog problems :-
WHO PERMITTED the Common to have its status altered ? (Many would say - detrimentally. )
There is plenty of evidence of damage, especially in the south west boggy area. The boggy areas are covered with large paw prints and damaged banks. The chewed stick in the photo was there on Sunday, now not present.[1] Just because you have personally not seen evidence for damage does not mean there isn’t any. The predatory habits of foxes have nothing to do with law – dogs are domesticated animals for which owners have legal responsibility. These same areas are home to such plants as the carnivorous Round-leaved sundew, which is out now and looking fantastic (taken today)[2]. Other plants damaged are bog asphodels and deer grass. Not to mention disturbance to breeding birds.
Dave: I hope you enjoyed your guided walk. Did the Ranger show you the Round-leaved sundew? It's a very small plant and easily flattened.
Philip: One of the photos of the boggy areas[1] show the wild cotton you refer to. The rare fly-catcher plant you mention will be the sundew[2]. They are both alive and well. The "unacceptable fence" around the Black Lake you refer to keeps people and (most) dogs away from the protected water voles and nesting water birds. It's fairly ugly, but necessary. Back in the 1920s the population of Wilmslow was around 8,300 - less than a third of its current total, and thus the wildlife was probably more able to look after itself. Here in the 21st century, it needs a protective hand.
[1] http://goo.gl/XJsmn
[2] http://goo.gl/3zjph
Some breeds of dogs need to be let off the lead to run to maintain their health... we can't do this on farmers fields, we increasingly can't do this in public parks, so may I suggest that the council complete the reinstatement of the old household waste site on Newgate (Newgate Nature Reserve) and make this a dog friendly zone? Currently the gates are locked so there's no parking for people visiting from futher afield (why?) and the ditches surrounding the hill need to be covered as these contain the toxic leachate from the buried waste. But this would be a perfect area as it is completely under used, probably due to the fact that it is not sign posted or promoted at all.
And as the council seem to be able to change the rules as they go along, how about stopping the peat digging on Lindow Moss before this (truely) unique bit of our heritage dissapears.
See this site:
http://www.lindowmoss.org.uk/page3.htm
This would then open up even more land for recreational use, thus taking the strain off the common. Dog owners do not need to be vilified and painted as urban terrorists. We just need our own space!
But the lake and its fence - Are human's old enjoyments such as paddling, model boat sailing (and occasionally child carrying boats and rafts) and (when appropriate) skating, less important and to be lost for the benefit of wild-life ? That should not be so !
Remember, the Common was given to the (human) people of Wilmslow for their enjoyment !
Incompetant meddling with the lake's base some years ago severely aggravated matters that led to the clearly declared "temporary" fence being erected (it was not expected to be made permanent and authority for so doing was and is highly questionable ) . It should come down, (except perhaps for a particular patch on the Eastern side of the lake)
Does it occur to you that coming across a large horse along a narrow bridal path is a huge nuisance for dog walkers who have to stand in the long grass to allow the beasts to pass fearing they may get kicked?
To all, the Common has a rich heritage from a human, animal and plant perspective. I can see from all these posts that there are widely differing views but then there are a lot of people in Wilmslow and I guess we all have our vested interests be it dogs, horses or plants. The best thing to do would be conduct a proper survey of views. We are after all only a few voices. How nice it would be to reach a compromise within the law which made everyone happy. How about some areas for dog running/ball throwing and some (like the wet areas Brendan mentioned) for preservation? And surely no-one is going to suggest we stop kids climbing trees - my son used to love that when he was younger. Also I love the idea of kids being able to sail boats on the lake. In the end isn't it a trade off between preservation and living?
Gill I can't sign off without saying how much l liked your description of some people viewing dogs as urban terrorists! What a great turn of phrase - it really made me chuckle.
As a child 60 years ago there was seemingly no control of anything. We built dens in the Rhodedendrons, caught lizards on the plinth where they sunbathed and tried to feed flies to the sundew.
Albert Slack ran trips round the lake in his motor boat on Saturdays, people canoed and even fished (though probably not very successfully).
It was one of my ancestors who arranged the donation of the common to the people of Wilmslow. I have not lived in Wilmslow for many years as I do not think that i could afford it but a couple of years ago when visiting my father I took a stroll round The Common and was shocked at how it had been fenced and protected so that it was for "looking at", not for using.
I belong to a generation that was much more at home with nature and we spent much of our time on "The Bog" or "The Common", in my case, often when I should have been at school. We knew where to find the birds and plants but The Common was always deemed to be a playground and that is what it was donated to the people for.
I am a member of the RSPB and appreciate that reserves are necessary and useful, indeed where I now live in The Orkney Islands, the RSPB is the biggest landowner in the county but "the Common" should be allowed to be used, especially by children so that they get used to being allowed to play outside and then come to value nature for themselves, not because the "powers that be" have told them that nature is so important that they can not be allowed to enjoy it.
I bet that catching lizards is against the law now.