UKC

Does anyone know why the valleys of Swindale and Haweswater are littered with red/white and green/white flags. The initials UPM are painted on some of them.
They are off path and scattered in an illogical manner up the valley sides.

In reply to Bob Bennett aka Last Thursday: Don't know, but there's some above Dunmail Raise too. Could be to do with a fell race / s or similar

Could be UPM Tilhill - Forestry contractor laying out for planting or similar

In reply to garethb: All the east side of Thirlmere has been planted from Castle Rock to Swirls, changing the valley forever, maybe same there.

http://www.upm.com/en/Pages/default.aspx

In reply to Dave Cumberland: You mean back to the forests. No more sheep grazed fells.

In reply to Phil1919: Only impenetrable bracken, ticks, no wildflowers or wild grasses and no access. The elephant in the room ignored by all.

In reply to Tim Chappell:
If this is the case it is a worrying development and should receive more publicity.
Over the last few decades, there seems to have existed a better approach to planting trees in contrast to the dense forests of ,say, Ennerdale just after the war.
May be completely wrong here but the positioning of the flags would suggest possible forestry development.

Having not seen the flags can't be definite, but form sounds of it, its more likely to be planned native woodland reinstatement/creation than commercial foresty.

In reply to garethb:


It seems odd that this can be done in Britain's busiest national park without any kind of public consultation. Or have we missed a postmark-sized announcement in the personal ads pages of The Westmorland Gazette?

In reply to Tim Chappell:

I'm not sure there'd be a legal requirement to hold a public consultation (or maybe there is - rather outside my expertise on consultation requirements). Possibly a planning matter?

I'm not sure if this is quite the same area - came up on a Google search for Swindale and Planning Application?
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/pins/common_land/decision/com446_d...

In reply to Tim Chappell:

It's been done at Thirlmere, fait accompli, no announcements. Best way to do it when you are in business. The question about who should be guardians of the Lake District doesn't come into it.

In reply to Carolyn: dont think thats it carolyn. the flags/markers are not in any straight lines (for fencing) they are in random positions accross the fell side.

In reply to dan bulman:

I wonder if it's all possibly part of the same planting scheme - but only the fencing needed planning, not the actual planting, some of which might be scattered? Don't know, just assuming Gareth recognises a forestry sign when he hears one described....

In reply to Carolyn: Now the tree planting is more likely to be native species (hopefully not sourced abroad). Given the location is it possible that they are not planting in straight lines?

In reply to Bob Bennett aka Last Thursday:

In the Lake District erosion, caused by over-grazing, land cultivation, drainage and human trampling, has resulted in soil loss and excessive sedimentation of watercourses, leading to local increases in flood risk and damage to important habitats and several freshwater priority species. The Forestry Commission (FC), Cumbria Woodlands, the National Trust, The Woodland Trust and Natural England, have come together in joint initiatives to address issues such as water quality, soil erosion and flooding across the National Park. As part of this work, Forest Research has created maps for Lake District National Park that identify land with vulnerable soils at risk from hill slope and stream bank erosion, where woodland creation has the potential to reduce diffuse pollution and improve water quality.

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/INFD-7T9JRD

In reply to Dave Cumberland

it's certainly a Fence Accompli, quite extensively

In reply to wercat:

It's history now - the future is bracken. It is already impossible to get to many crags like Lower Falcon. Castle Rock is next.
The NPA hasn't a clue.
DC

In reply to Dave Cumberland: how would you get rid of bracken?
tree planting to reduce flood risks is surely a good idea?

In reply to Bob Bennett aka Last Thursday:

UPM have done some good work with the RSPB to plant native tree plantations in the Lakes, so not necessarily bad news ... Though I'm sure that is good publicity to counterbalance other work.

Couldit also be that the flags are part of a planning permission process to give planners visiting the site a visual representation of the extent of a new development from an appropriate viewing point?

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

Caused by past overgrazing of sheep. No mention of that, eh. The best way to control bracken is to put a canopy over it. Not the NPA doing it.

In reply to malk:

The two are totally unrelated. The 2009 flood in Cmouth and Keswick was caused by UU neither anticipating nor thinking ahead after 3 weeks of high rainfall and reservoirs at peak levels and not lowered by UU, then letting all the water out of Thirlmere at the same time as the rainfall peaked. Madness.

In reply to brokenbanjo:

You are not making sense, please explain what point you are trying to make using plain English. Currently, we have gone through over-grazing, sheep removal, now we actually need more sheep than there are at present to trample and reduce bracken, otherwise we are all stuffed.

In reply to Dave Cumberland: bracken doesnt like shade, plant a broadleaf woodland (loosely) and biodiversity will improve. Grants to subsidise are available, bracken dies back a bit irrespective of sheep numbers then. Nature knows best, we don't.