ignorant district council policy on horses

[wessexyeoman]

The following is cut and pasted directly from Purbeck District Council's local plan document. It is aimed at field shelters but the text displays some breath-taking ignorance and stupidity. As you read it, consider just two facts - English NAture use ponies to graze heathland in Purbeck, and there is no comparable mention of motorbikes or cycles anywhere in the document.

I would love to have your thoughts on this one!! Here we go:

Equestrian Development in the Countryside
4.3.28 Recreational horse keeping in the countryside can have harmful effects on the environment.
Riding in the countryside can contribute to soil erosion, harm vegetation and have detrimental
impacts on nature conservation interests. The keeping of horses can also lead to pressure for
stabling, shelters and other structures which can be detrimental to the character and appearance
of the countryside. The use of land for grazing cannot be controlled by the local planning
authority, though the keeping of horses for recreational use involves a more intensive use of
land which is subject to planning control. While the distinction between grazing and keeping is
not always clear, keeping normally involves a smaller area of grazing land per horse, with
greater need for supplementary feeding.

 

[trundle]

That's terribly depressing. It makes me sad that there is so little understanding of horses in something as importnat as a planning office.

Is there a link to the document online, WY?

 

[wessexyeoman]

online - google 'purbeck district council', use the search box for 'local plan', move your mouse over the small paragraph that says you can download/view online and click on it, then find chapter 4 pdf, and scroll down to paragraph 4.3.28.

 

[BigBird146]

Well, it seems in line with general government policy: 'The countryside would be OK if it wasn't for all the pesky blighters that want to live and work their, getting in the way of our second homes and creating nasty smells. Lets just ban them.'

 

[reynold]

sadly this is pretty typical of planners attitude to horses in a lot of places

 

[wessexyeoman]

does anyone know what their own district council policy is?

 

[kit279]

[ QUOTE ]
Equestrian Development in the Countryside
4.3.28 Recreational horse keeping in the countryside can have harmful effects on the environment.

[/ QUOTE ]
So exactly where are you supposed to 'recreationally keep your horse'? In London Town?! Seems a bit surprising since horses have been kept in the countryside for centuries, long before District Councils ever existed...

 

[AmyMay]

Here's my version:

Cereal growing in the countryside can contribute to soil erosion, harm vegetation and have detrimental
impacts on nature conservation interests. The growing of cereals can also lead to pressure for structures which can be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside.

Or How About:

Keeping diary herds in the countryside can contribute to soil erosion, harm vegetation and have detrimental impacts on nature conservation interests. The keeping of cattle can also lead to pressure for structures which can be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside.

Any one else??

 

[wessexyeoman]

have a look at your own district council's website, look for the local plan, chapter 4 - if they are standardised - and see what they say - let me know!!

 

[DipseyDeb]

Also the methane that cows produce is harmful to the ozone layer.....

And if we keep filling up the land with these smelly horses, where will all the new pretty council houses go?

 

[reynold]

it's not just here - in the Mail on saturday Switzerland have passed an animal welfare law that comes into effect in September banning totally the keeping of single horses or guineapigs (and a few other pets) and also bans the tying up of any horse, cow, goat, sheep, etc on any 'hard surface'

so if you were in switzerland from september as a single horse owner you'd HAVE to keep your horse at livery or go in with friends and you'd not be able to tie it up unless the shoeing/washbox/stable had bedding or presume a rubber surface counts as 'soft'

 

[BBH]

I'm so glad Winchester appear a bit more enlightened, they use the BHS for guidance on a horses needs. Not saying that you get everything you ask for but they aren't so anti-horse at that.

 

[Booboos]

Planners in the UK are INSANE. Each one makes it up as they go along and their decisions just reflect their individual prejudices (sorry if anyone on here is a planner, I am sure some of you try your best, but the ones I have come across couldn't have been worse).

 

[Tia]

[ QUOTE ]
Recreational horse keeping in the countryside can have harmful effects on the environment

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd agree with that, they most definitely do.

[ QUOTE ]
Riding in the countryside can contribute to soil erosion, harm vegetation and have detrimental
impacts on nature conservation interests.

[/ QUOTE ]
Being the owner of a decent sized farm where horses are kept, without question the above is true.

[ QUOTE ]
The keeping of horses can also lead to pressure for
stabling, shelters and other structures which can be detrimental to the character and appearance
of the countryside.

[/ QUOTE ]
My bank balance tells me that the former is certainly so. The latter; depends on what you personally view as detrimental to the character of wherever. I'd admit I don't like to view ugly horse shelters, but on the other hand I do think that old barns have an aesthetic appeal.

[ QUOTE ]
The use of land for grazing cannot be controlled by the local planning
authority, though the keeping of horses for recreational use involves a more intensive use of
land which is subject to planning control.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes I would say that in England, horses in general, are raised in a far more intensive type environment than, for example, over here in North America. Where I live there really isn't planning controls on horses that make any sense - I don't see why it should be any different over in England

.

[ QUOTE ]
While the distinction between grazing and keeping is
not always clear, keeping normally involves a smaller area of grazing land per horse, with
greater need for supplementary feeding.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd say that yes, often this is the case.



And going back to your earlier comment;
[ QUOTE ]
the text displays some breath-taking ignorance and stupidity.

[/ QUOTE ]
Boy I must be incredibly ignorant and stupid then lol!! I can't believe I haven't learned anything about horse-keeping and owning livery stables over all these years

.

 

[sidesaddlegirl]

The council doesn't want horses in the countryside as then they can't pave over it and create their beloved "Eco Towns"!!

 

[wessexyeoman]

Tia

Many thanks for the opposing view - it would be very dull if we all had the same thoughts.

Of course, I am going to disagree with your bit - as a farmer as well, I have land that I no longer stock, and horses graze what I would otherwise have to mow or let run!

The assumption in the planning statement is that all horse pastures are badly managed - some certainly are, but it is not a basis for planning. Sure, field shelters can be bad, pressure on farmers for fields and shelters can be detrimental, but it is a blanket statement that all equestrian matters are bad - and that is wrong.

However, the most ridiculous bit is the 'riding in the countryside' sentence - you cannot surely agree with that, can you?

 

[Tia]

I always like to give a balanced view

.

Riding in the countryside not causing damage; hmm depends on what you mean by this. My liveries and horse-owning neighbours riding around my fields and through my forest trails; yes they do damage, and cause a great deal of soil erosion. If you are talking about riding along country lanes, then no; we don't ride along country lanes here, always on trails or in fields.

 

[chunklovescooks]

I'm not sure it's horses the council needs to worry about! they keep the grass down, dispose of grass/haylage etc, they could worry about fly tipping, vandalism, car thefts, but no! they decide, lets concentrate on horses! what (dare i say it) idiots! this really annoy's me, although doesnt directly affect me as i dont live in purbeck!

Stephen

 

[jackessex]

t.d.c in essex said no to our application for a nice block of stables so we had to put individual mobile shelters which look awfull,but said yes to the chap next door to put up two whacking great metal barns.they said our post and rail fencing wasnt inkeeping with the countryside yet allowed the same chap to erect a six foot high red brick wall!!!makes no sence to me!!!

 

[FinellaGlen]

Tia, I read your comments with interest. Do you think that horses should not be kept at all in the UK?

 

[Tia]

Do I think that horses should not be kept at all in the UK? What an bizarre thing to ask; why would I think that?

Horses damage the environment, no two ways about it; just as people, cars, livestock, aeroplanes, buses etc etc damage the environment.

 

[FinellaGlen]

Sorry, it was meant to be a sensible question! Because you stated with a lot of conviction how much environmental damage was caused by keeping and riding horses it made me wonder if you felt that only people with access to decent sized farms should have horses in order to limit the damage cause to the countryside?

There is a lot of anti horse feeling in the UK. It may be different in North America, in fact I sincerely hope that it is. I personally feel that the damage caused by the recreational horses in the UK is as nothing when you compare it to other hobbies which have the potential to cause even more damage e.g. driving 4WD or trials bikes along country tracks, land concreted over to build yet another Tesco etc. Unfortunately, non horse lovers here in the UK can often have a very negative view of horses and the serious damage that they supposedly cause, including the heinous crime of pooing on the road from time to time. It sounds daft to me but a lot of people are outraged by the fact that horses are allowed to be kept and ridden anywhere other than a field

 

[Tia]

On the contrary - I actually think I should turf all of my lot off and tell them to ride around the lanes instead of messing up the landscape of my beautiful farm!

Not really; I accept horses make a mess, I accept that they damage the environment, I accept that field shelters are not visually attractive, I accept that horses in England are kept on much smaller acreage and have less access to off-road riding; but it's tough really as they are there and they aren't going away.

I can see why horse people would be upset by this piece written for, or on behalf, of the planners, BUT almost everything it says is true. It may not be wanted but horsey folks do know that it is true.

Look at all of the photos on here with fields where horses are up to their knees in mud. Take a ride down any bridleway in winter and I'll bet it is damaged with horse hoof holes everywhere.

What the initiative HASN'T covered, are the positive points about horses and the plus points of people who farm/keep horses. Depending on how good a farmer/countryside resident you are; new hedgerows being planted, ponds being fenced off, river banks being made inaccessible to livestock/bloodstock, manure being used as organic fertilizer, the economic opportunities within the community which come as a direct impact of having and keeping horses; the other industries which indirectly benefit from horse owners .... etc etc, the list goes on.

I believe that the biggest sole problem for the UK is that horses are seen as bloodstock and not as livestock as in over here. You are subject to ridiculous rulings, which would not affect any livestock agent, even though his animals may cause the same, if not more, damage to the environment!

See! I told you I like to give balanced views.

 

[FinellaGlen]

Thanks for explaining your views Tia

I agree that horses do definitely churn up fields and bridle paths when the ground is wet but it is my firm opinion that there are other hobbies/pastimes which cause much greater damage to the environment. There must be a reason why horses and everything that goes along with keeping and riding them are singled out for such harsh planning regulations. In my opinion you are probably right to say that it is because they are not considered as livestock. I also think it is because they are still considered the preserve of the rich, however inaccurate this may be in today's world.

As for planners considering any positive points about horses - not a chance in this country I'm afraid. All our laws are becoming more draconian by the minute. I am sadly awaiting the day when permission to breathe depends on the correct form being presented to a government official when they are having a rare reasonable day

 

[Tia]

Oh I agree with you. Why do you think we eventually became fed up of all the ludicrous regulations over there and decided to emigrate

. Much as I adore the countryside in England, the thought of trying to make the rest of our way through life with our livelihoods being dependent on farming of any sort in England, was too risky for us, so we sold up and moved to the North American Continent.

We have some very silly rules over here in Canada too, but so far, they have not crept as insidiously into farming, as they have in England. Right now we are safe over here, mainly due to the fact that we have a thriving horsemeat market; for as long as we have horses going for food, they will remain livestock and we will be treated the same as any other farmer. If they ever close down this industry (which is highly doubtful in the near future) then horse farms could be on the same sticky wicket as they are in England. We keep crops growing in about 3/4's of our fields, not for any other reason but, incase our (my) Govt takes away the "agriculture status" of horse farms. We will still be covered as agriculture if this were ever to happen, thanks to our hay/corn crops.

I agree that in England the Govt does have issues with horse people, in that they believe if you own a horse then you must be loaded, of course that is not the case and they probably know that, but they are playing on the fact that these animals are your pets and not working animals making a living for you, therefore they see them as a luxury where they can place any obstacles in your path, because you have no say!

Once again, it is different over here as horses are very much work animals still. Many farmers still use horsepower (of the old fashioned variety) to plough and to seed and to cultivate smaller areas where their large tractors do not have as much maneuverability.

Many people here still use horses as their primary means of working their cattle on the large ranges. The terrain is more suited to horses than any mechanised vehicle.

I'd say, that on proportion, there are probably many more people here who own horses, as opposed to the proportion of the population in the UK who own horses. Having a horse really isn't seen as elite here - it is seen as necessary.

I really don't know what will happen long-term in England. I felt, when I lived there, that everyone in the countryside was being penalised in some form or another .... and I can only see it getting worse.

Sorry for the ramble - you know how carried away I can get at times.