Issuu

Reducing Stock Casualties on Sites with Vehicular Access

GAP

GAP Information leaflet Reducing stock casualties on sites with vehicular access About this leaflet Maintaining or reinstituting grazing on land with road access can be fraught with difficulties, and the inappropriate driving of some road users will always be an issue that occasionally leads to accidents. This leaflet is intended to help owners and managers of such sites minimize the risks to both animals and drivers, and many of the techniques are reviewed and justified for reducing deer / vehicle collisions by the National Deer Collisions Project – see later NB: No one measure is likely to be totally effective in isolation and different solutions will be appropriate for different locations You should also try to reduce road traffic accidents caused and involving other wildlife as well, and some of the techniques outlined below will be applicable. NB: Costs of mitigation appear high but these should be viewed in light of the costs that accidents will involve, (and remember that these figures do not include other costs such as carcass clearance venison costs etc): Human Fatality Serious injury Slight injury

£1.185 million per fatality avoided by mitigation £133,170 per incident avoided £10,270 per incident averted

Ref: Highways Economic Note 1: The value to the economy of the prevention of Road Accidents, Department of Transport Human Injury RTA’s are estimated to be worth in excess of £5m to the Scottish economy alone, with a further £1m incurred through damage to vehicles. Highway Code: Paragraph 190: Animals: ‘When passing animals, drive slowly. Give them plenty

of room and be ready to stop. Do not scare animals by sounding your horn or revving your engine. Look out for animals being led or ridden on the road and take extra care and keep your speed down at left-hand bends and on narrow country roads. If a road is blocked by a herd of animals, stop and switch off your engine until they have left the road. Watch out for animals on unfenced roads’.

Produced (November 2007) by GAP Grazing Advice Partnership, Room 202, Carlton Business Centre, Maundrell Road, Porte Marsh Ind Estate, Calne, SN11 9PU Website: www.grazingadvicepartnership.org.uk Email: enquiries@grazingadvicepartnership.org.uk

Reducing Stock Casualties on Sites with Vehicular Access

1. Vegetation management If drivers can see stock clearly (and vice versa) and are not surprised by the sudden appearance of stock on roads, the chances of a collision will be much reduced and road users can adapt their driving accordingly, i.e. slowing down and anticipating the need to break or take avoiding action. Therefore site managers should aim for as low an overall cover of scrub and tall vegetation on site as possible (compatible with any other site objectives) and consider completely clearing wide strips 20-30 metres wide immediately adjacent to and alongside both sides of roads. 2. Stock management a.) Breed choice The colour and to some extent temperament of different breeds are important considerations, as light coloured cattle are more visible on the roads and amongst the vegetation of the site (this helps with stock checking as well). BRITISH WHITE COW

b.) Grazing routine and siting of stock infrastructure Animals on site will develop a daily and seasonal routine in response to certain factors, such as where they can find shade and shelter, water, forage and freedom from nuisance flies etc. It is important to analyse this behaviour and routine so that you can try to minimise stock crossing roads by reducing their need to do so, for example making sure water is available on both sides of a site bisected by a road. c.) Shepherded flocks and herds In parts of Europe, notably in Holland and Germany, shepherded flocks are still used, both for conservation grazing and grassland management on some farms. The sheep are housed every night in a traditional barn and walked by the shepherd to and from the grazing each day. ‘Droving’ (e.g. Old English Sheepdogs), and eye sheepdogs (e.g. Border Collies and Kelpies) are used to help give very close control over the sheep, but they will also follow the shepherd. Because of this close control, and the fact that the flocks are effectively ‘hefted’ to the grazing areas, they can be used to graze right up to the edge of very busy roads with little risk. There is also a heightened awareness of the presence of these grazing flocks because they are still part of the cultural\traditions of local areas and have a high input from local people and partner organisations, for example in the running of sheep festivals (with the animals walked in to town!) and the use of voluntary shepherds and helpers.

Reducing Stock Casualties on Sites with Vehicular Access

d.) Hefted flocks and herds / breeding animals Animals will ‘heft’ to an area, i.e. become acclimatized to a home range/territory. If for any reason a flock/herd has to be replaced, the new animals will not be used to the area and problems may arise. Similarly, young animals will also take time to become trained, and often it is these animals that suddenly dash across the road to get to their mothers (or vice versa). With new stock, time and effort will be needed to help this process: the stockman will need to spend time with the animals herding/flocking them together on site and rounding up strays. It may be worth gathering, corralling or taking the animals off site every night. Watch out for disruptive animals that wander and consider getting rid of them. Can you use non-breeding animals? e.) Reflective collars and leg bands Reflective, fluorescent collars and leg bands can be used on both cattle and ponies so that they are more visible after dark. Leg bands can be attached by gluing the ends together. It may be that collisions will be more likely in the autumn as day length decreases and the clocks are changed. NB: It is important on young, growing animals that bands are regularly checked to avoid them pinching. f.) Fencing and cattle grids A range of fencing types, including temporary electric, can be put up to separate stock from traffic. If you have regular stock crossing points that are causing problems with traffic (for example if they cross where visibility is low or on a bend or in a dip), strategic use of short stretches of appropriate fencing can channel animals to better crossing points, e.g. an under or over pass). For more information on fencing types, consult BTCV Handbooks on fencing: Technical office, 10 South Parade, Northallerton, DL7 8SE; Available to purchase online at www.btcv.org or Tel: 01302 572244. Permanent, temporary and even painted cattle grids (cattle do not like to cross bright lines on the road) can be used to restrict movements of stock. Reference: Practical Solutions Handbook: Available to order from http://naturalengland.twoten.com/NaturalEnglandShop Hopkins Quick Fit Cattle Grid: Installed within hours, load tested to 50 tons. Tel: 01686 627374 Web: www.hopkinscattlegrids.co.uk Cattle grid designs are based on British standard (BS) 4008, price £72 from the British Standards Institute: Tel: 020 8996 9001 Email: cservices@bsi-global.com Web: www.bsi-global.com Also see: www.cattlegrids.com/index.html ROUND BARS AND SOLID FIXING CAN HELP REDUCE TRAFFIC NOISE FROM CATTLE GRIDS

Reducing Stock Casualties on Sites with Vehicular Access

g.) Stock crossing points with traffic lights

Specially constructed stock crossing points can be put in, allied to fencing, to control stock movements across roads; these can be combined with stock actuated ‘slow down’ signs, traffic and warning lights to alert drivers. Case study: Implementing cattle grids – Jenny Phelps, Cotswold’s AONB grassland Project Officer 1.

Before you start speak to the necessary Parish Councils, commons committee, neighbouring farmers, graziers and residents to get support.

Make contact with the Divisional Operations Manager at the Highways Operations Headquarters that covers the area in which you want to install cattle grids Offer to visit them to explain your project proposals and why you need to install cattle grids and your suggested locations. Be enthusiastic Arrange a site visit with the Divisional Operations Manager, Senior Highways Safety Officer, consultants to the Highways Authority, Defra, the land owner and anyone of local interest e.g. active commoners/graziers Examine the locations for suitability for safety, signage, noise, by-pass facility, steepness etc. It is particularly important to be able acquire neighbouring land for the by-pass facility. (This may be particularly difficult if the land is common land owned by the National Trust as the common may be subject to protection under ‘inalienability’) These meetings can become overly negative as there are nearly always complications with proposed sites. Be positive and keep going until a suitable site is identified

    3.

Once locations are agreed with Highways, funding is required to instruct the consultants to carry out a feasibility study into the locations. The brief for this work is complex and funding may also be required to ask the consultants to identify to you the exact procedure. The feasibility study may need to include a safety audit for sites on bends or steep gradients. It will also include an environmental desk top study. This identifies through further research whether the sites are affected by underlying utilities

Once the sites are seen as being feasible, funding is required to instruct the consultants to draw up phase 1 statutory and public consultation plans. Funding will also be required for the consultants to carryout the statutory consultation for you, e.g. Police and emergency services. This consultation period is for a set time period, usually one calendar month. Meanwhile it is up to the conservation project, parish council and local community to carryout the public consultation, which will include advertising in local parish publications, letters to residents, public meetings etc. Public consultation should also be for a set period of time

After the consultation periods are completed, it is necessary to respond to all consultees with an opinion and as long as there are no formal objections, the phase 2 detailed costings, drawings and plans can be instructed. This will also require funding. Key concerns are animal welfare, noise and danger to small mammals. Positive benefits can be traffic calming, open spaces for recreation etc

At this stage it is important to ensure that the Section 10 Legal Orders are instructed for changing the Highways. This will also require funding, though your local authority may organise this for you

I you have a Higher Level Scheme application, once you have the detailed designs and costing, an application can be made to Defra under HLS capital works plan to fund the construction at 80% for the reintroduction of grazing on important sites. Defra may enable you to recoup the cost of the research and development by ‘ring fencing’ the total spent on feasibility studies and plans so that the 80% pays for the construction. Defra may not fund all the cattle grids so other funding sources may be required. Remember to include all additional boundary repairs, new fencing, water supply, associated scrub works etc. into your capital works plan

Section 38 is generally not required to install cattle grids on a common though it is always sensible to check each individual site with Defra. The Highways Act can over-ride the need for Section 38 in most cases as long as the common is not being enclosed by new fencing (Section 82 (4) of the Highways Act (1980). Section 38 is required for any construction on a common that is subject to rights of common but cattle grids are on the Highway. Check the commons register with your local authority

Construction can then be carried out by the Highways main contractor

Contact:

Tel: 07841 663604

email: jenny.phelps@englandsfields.co.uk

Reducing Stock Casualties on Sites with Vehicular Access 5 Extract from the Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 6, Section 3, Chapter 7 (TA 57/87); www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/index.htm 7.1 General 7.1.1 This section gives general advice on cattle grids which are found mostly in rural areas. However, there are some instances on urban roads, e.g. deer parks or sheep grazing areas, where these principles need to be observed. 7.1.2 A cattle grid is a device designed to prevent the passage of animals but allow the passage of certain types of wheeled traffic. It normally consists of a number of transverse bars supported over a pit and includes adjacent fencing and an alternative, gated means of passage for animals and people. 7.1.3 The responsibility for animals straying or lying on or at the side of the highway lies with their keepers (Section 155 of Highways Act 1980), and also the Animals Act 1971). This does not apply to highways passing over common, waste or unenclosed ground (section 8. (1) and (2) of the Animals Act 1971) 7.1.4 On existing routes, experience has shown that the maintenance of fencing and control of farm gates giving access to the highway has been generally effective in preventing animals straying on to the highway rather than providing cattle grids for example, on motorway access roads. 7.1.5 Design of cattle grids is covered by BS 4008 (ref 28). In general a minimum grid length of 2.6m is required to be effective, with pit depths of around 250mm. 7.1.6 It is recommended that a sloping ramp 150mm wide not steeper than 1 in 3 be constructed leading from the floor to the edge of the pit to allow for the escape of small animals, such as hedgehogs, which would otherwise be trapped. 7.1.7 Cattle grids may be ineffective in deterring the passage of some types of sheep. Special fencing is required where the adjacent land is used by deer. 7.2 Siting 7.2.1 Attention is drawn to Sections 82-88 of the Highways Act 1980 concerning provision, removal, maintenance and supersession of cattle grids. The usual objective is to prevent access by animals to the highway by suitable provisions. Cattle grids can also be sited to restrict the extent of movement of animals along a road. 7.2.2 Cattle grids require vehicles to cross at relatively low speeds, they may also cause skidding. Their design may necessitate the imposition of weight limits for passage and they can also be a source of noise nuisance. Cattle grids should only be provided on trunk roads where other alternatives have been fully investigated and found to be unavoidable. 7.2.3 On new roads, consideration should be given to the provision of accommodation crossings or underpasses (ref 29) where regular passage of domestic of wild animals such as ponies or deer across the highway route exists. On the boundaries to common land, partial fencing of an environmentally sympathetic design may need to be considered as a means of avoiding numerous cattle grids at frontage accesses to the highway or extensive fencing of the highway boundary. 7.2.4 Cattle grids should be placed on straight sections of road. A location on bends should be avoided due to the potential skidding of vehicles on the grid bars. Cattle grids can be hazardous to pedal cycles and motor cycles, and should therefore be designed to be clearly visible on the approaches. 7.2.5 Notice of warning of cattle grid presence (Diagram 552 ref 55) and any loading restriction should be posted so that approaching vehicles can reduce speed safely to around 20 km/h and take alternative routes if overweight. 7.2.6 At railway level crossings where the adjacent land is used for grazing, the automatic half barrier type will need a highway cattle grid on the roadway on one or both sides of the crossing as appropriate. 7.2.7 If cattle are likely to be driven over the level crossing of if there is horse traffic, then manually operated gates should be provided adjacent to the grids and normal cattle-cum-trespass guards placed across the track. 7.3 Typical Drawing 7.3.1 Department of Transport drawing no B109/1D shows a typical cattle grid design. 7.3.2 Steelwork should be to BS4360 grade 50C except on the occasions where rectangular hollow sections are used, in which case grade 50B applies. 7.3.3 Type A standard grids apply to all roads other than very minor roads with low flows (less than 100 AADT) or farm accesses where type B may apply. Both types require provision of internal ramps in accordance with paragraph 7.1.6. 7.3.4 Drivers may lose control of vehicles on cattle grids due to the excess wear resulting from vehicles braking on the grid bars. Treatment of grid bars with non-skid epoxy screeds, as well as being expensive, is not a long-term solution and difficult situations should incorporate measures to achieve a reduction of vehicle approach speeds to within the grid design criteria.

Reducing Stock Casualties on Sites with Vehicular Access

3. Traffic calming a.) Introduction It has been proven that traffic calming and lower speeds result in a substantial reduction in crashes. Traffic calming and speed reduction initiatives should be combined with measures to divert heavy or non-essential traffic onto more appropriate routes. Generally, high traffic densities are less expected on rural minor roads between towns and villages. Therefore where they do occur (e.g. tourist routes, national parks, markets and car boot sales or short cuts avoiding urban congestion) pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders are less prepared and therefore more vulnerable. Whilst motorists may regulate their speed in a village where they would expect people to be crossing roads etc., they may be less prepared to show consideration towards other road users or stock on rural roads. There are many types of traffic calming, every Highway Authority has their own particular variation on the theme and each individual site has different conditions, so the scheme must be tailored to suit the site. Traffic calming measures should be co-ordinated with local speed reduction campaigns and any police speed enforcement initiatives. NB: Make sure that in addition to prominent and clear site notices and road signs that you publicise that animals are grazing on site as widely as possible, for example using the local press, TV and radio, Tourist Information Centres and partner organisations. The following list highlights some of the most popular methods. Each can be used on its own or considered as individual elements of a combined scheme, (this approach is often the most successful).   



      

Speed limits (Cost £2,000-5,000 plus traffic calming) Gateways (Cost £2,000 -10,000) Access Restrictions (gated roads, directing road users away from calmed areas, physical closures, legal orders (in many cases the implementation of a traffic regulation order with associated signing can be used to restrict the use of the road to a certain type of vehicle. However these restrictions have proven to be notoriously difficult to enforce and rely heavily on policing to make them effective.) (Cost for severed road £3,000) Prominent signs (standard, vehicle actuated – ‘slow down’ flashing) (Cost permanent standard signs £500; portable speed sensitive signs £2,500 - £3,500; permanent speed sensitive signs £15,000 £20,000); but drivers can become habituated to signs, and this can be mitigated by only displaying signage when stock are on site, and / or using shock signage: e.g. accident blackspot: XX livestockvehicle collisions on this stretch of road in the past XX months, whilst still encouraging / enforcing careful driving behaviour Road Markings [detailed in the TSRGD (Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions)] Surface treatment: (rumble strips, bar markings, colour changes) (Rumble strips cost £1,000) Road narrowing (chicanes, islands, kerb build outs, footway extensions) (Cost per build out £1,500; Cost per road narrowing £2,000 -15,000) Road humps (speed cushions, i.e. those which don’t traverse the whole carriageway; tables, i.e. longer with flattened top) (Cost per hump about £2,500; Cost per pair of cushions about £2,000; Speed tables cost £5,000) Speed cameras (Cost £10,000 excluding cameras) Changed priorities for different road users Reverse measures (i.e. where it has been demonstrated that road safety has actually been improved by the removal of engineering features!)

It is important to consult widely and monitor the effects of calming measures (both before and after).

Reducing Stock Casualties on Sites with Vehicular Access

b.) Who to contact on traffic calming?    

Local Authorities are constantly updating and reviewing their traffic calming strategies; areas where consensus support for a scheme can be demonstrated are given higher priority If you wish to promote a traffic calming scheme consult widely to gain support Once you have established a local consensus contact your County Councillor or propose the scheme through your parish council. Then contact your local Highways Authority Sustrans can advise on traffic calming measures and are keen to work with others, especially where benefits for cyclists will occur. Tel: 0845 113 0065; Web: www.sustrans.org.uk; email: info@sustrans.org.uk

c.) Commons legislation  

Any fencing or road calming measures on common land are likely to require consent from the Secretary of State under Common Land Law: www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/issues/common/index.htm Again wide consultation will be required following the advice contained within: ‘ A common purpose’ available to download from http://naturalengland.twoten.com/NaturalEnglandShop

4. Insurance 



Any grazier must agree to insure to an adequate level of cover against liability to third parties for loss, injury or damage arising in relation to the grazing livestock with an insurance company approved by the site owner, and to produce to them the policy of insurance and the receipt for the last premium payable for it before a grazing licence is issued The site owner should maintain insurance cover for their own livestock against liability to third parties for loss, injury or damage arising in relation to the livestock, and also against injury to or loss of the said livestock arising from grazing on owned land

5. References         

Rural Minor Road Traffic Calming – Sustrans: 0845 113 0065 or available to download at www.sustrans.org.uk ; email: info@sustrans.org.uk Department of Transport enquiry service: Tel: 020 7944 8300; www.dft.gov.uk Essential list of County, District and Parish Councils websites:www.tagish.co.uk/links/ The Deer Collision Project and specifically: Deer and road traffic accidents: a review of mitigation measures: costs and cost-effectiveness; [Report for the Deer Commission for Scotland]; Professor R.J. Putman, Dr J. Langbein and Professor B.W. Staines; 5/03/04; www.deercollisions.co.uk Deer-Vehicle Crash Information Clearing House (DVCIC): www.deercrash.com/toolbox COST 341: Action paper – Habitat fragmentation due to transport infrastructure, November 2003, ISBN: 92-894-5591-8 Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 6, Section 3, Chapter 7 (TA 57/87); www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/index.htm Animals Act 1971, www.opsi.gov.uk Highways Act 1980, www.opsi.gov.uk

Appendix 1 - Examples of measures taken to reduce casualties on site with vehicular access Produced (November 2007) by GAP Grazing Advice Partnership, Room 202, Carlton Business Centre, Maundrell Road, Porte Marsh Ind Estate, Calne, SN11 9PU Website: www.grazingadvicepartnership.org.uk Email: enquiries@grazingadvicepartnership.org.uk

Reducing Stock Casualties on Sites with Vehicular Access

Speed humps

Underpasses

Speed limits - Speed cameras – Road marking

Signs

Green bridges

Appendix 2 – Case studies Produced (November 2007) by GAP Grazing Advice Partnership, Room 202, Carlton Business Centre, Maundrell Road, Porte Marsh Ind Estate, Calne, SN11 9PU Website: www.grazingadvicepartnership.org.uk Email: enquiries@grazingadvicepartnership.org.uk

Reducing Stock Casualties on Sites with Vehicular Access

a.) Epping Forest Herdsman project The City of London have contracted Verderer Michael Davis to employ a full time ‘herdsman’, Oe Samuelson, to manage over 50 barren Longhorn cattle across the public open space of Epping Forest, a mix of open glades of acid grassland and lowland heath, wood pasture and broadleaved woodland. They have partially fenced one busy road that crosses the site, but this does not ‘enclose’ the common and stock could actually wander around its ends if they wanted to. The cattle are corralled at night, and have developed a daily and seasonal routine that stays largely the same with few problems. Oe finds that she can predict where the stock will be during the day. Epping Forest is an urban fringe site, and receives more than two million day visits annually.

b.) Waidwerk game-stop - a system from Germany to reduce casualties in deer Tel: Alexander Schmidt 0049-7945-9429154; email: info@leroi.de To download from: www.leroi.de

c.) Malvern Commons

Note lack of scrub, secondary woodland or tall vegetation, resulting in high visibility for both drivers and stock (cattle and sheep graze these commons)

Reducing Stock Casualties on Sites with Vehicular Access

d.) The National Deer Collisions Project A collaborative project to establish a nation wide network for the collection of standardized information on deer related RTA’s in order to ascertain the level of accidents and determine the risk factors associated with increased frequency in differing parts of the country; also to raise awareness, spread information and review current best practice from around the world, (report available online: www.deercollisions.co.uk/ftp/mit_review.doc) and if needed test prevention systems and measures in the UK. Deer collisions can be recorded online to contribute to the database. Deer collision techniques reviewed and costed (installation and maintenance):             

Roadside reflectors Chemical fences Fences Manipulating deer numbers / population densities (Driver) reactive road signs – ‘slow down’ flashing lights (Deer) reactive flashing lights utilising lasers and infrared beams and in one case animals equipped with radiotransmitters Sound scarers New dedicated, a. dual use, b. retrospective erection, and c. adapting existing overpasses and underpasses In-vehicle vision systems using infrared to enhance driver detection of roadside deer and displaying images continually on a screen dashboard Management of roadside vegetation Speed limits Road design Safe, signed crossing points

Risk factors for deer – vehicle collisions:        

Road type, character, location, traffic speed and volume Specific deer routes Woodland and dense vegetation close to the road Road design Poor visibility (topography, vegetation, weather and light conditions) Day length and time of day/night (dusk to midnight, just before dawn) Roadside slope Season (related to rutting, day length)



Presence / absence of central barrier

Tel: 01984 641366

Web: www.deercollisions.co.uk

e.) Deer and traffic on Ashdown Forest With increasing numbers of deer, conflicts inevitably occur. Nationally, there are estimated to be 50,000 traffic accidents per year involving deer, including human fatalities. Within the area of Ashdown Forest, the Rangers deal with some 200 incidents per year. It is possible to minimise the chance of hitting a deer by following these rules:    

Deer move between feeding and resting grounds at dawn and dusk: take particular care at these times There are peaks in deer traffic accidents during the rut in the autumn and after fawning in the spring; again, take particular care during these periods Deer usually travel in small groups; if one crosses the road in front of you, look out for the rest following Where woodland or scrub comes right to the road verge, take special care - deer may step straight onto the carriageway

Reducing Stock Casualties on Sites with Vehicular Access 11  At night, animal eyes reflect headlights - slow down if you see them on the verge  Inevitably, traffic speed is the main factor governing the number and severity of animal traffic accidents

- drive across the Forest as slowly as practical

If you are unlucky enough to hit a deer within the boundaries of the Forest, ring the Rangers on 01342 823583. The Rangers have considerable experience of dealing with injured deer and will give the animal every chance to recover. However, deer will rarely survive a heavy impact, in which case the Rangers are trained to put the animal down humanely. If you are outside the area, ring the police. A CAR WRITTEN-OFF AFTER HITTING A DEER. THE DEER, NEEDLESS TO SAY, DID NOT SURVIVE

Web: www.ashdownforest.org/deer.html

f.) New Forest Motorists using the unfenced Forest roads cause the death or injury of between 100 and 200 commoners’ animals and many wild deer each year. Almost all accidents involve private cars, most occur at night and a high proportion of the motorists are local people. There has been a decline in the number of accidents over the last six years, probably due to the introduction of speed limits, traffic calming, signage and general raising of awareness. Nevertheless animal fatalities are still at an unacceptable level and are a matter of considerable concern. Specific traffic calming measures are being considered for accident hotspots on a number of the unfenced roads. In addition effective enforcement of the present speed limit is being promoted, with benefits for both the animals and other road users, including cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians. g.) Gower commons Cows grazing on common land in Gower are given reflective collars to help prevent them being hit by cars. Cattle, sheep and ponies have regularly been killed or injured by motorists on the open heathlands. In one three month period, 90 animals died as a result of traffic accidents. The Gower Commons Society has campaigned for lower speed limits on main roads and hoped that the collars would also help prevent accidents in future (which it seems to have done).

The specially designed reflective collars have been paid for by the Gower Society and commoners. Although this initiative is welcome, it should not replace responsible driving. GCI has campaigned to have speed limits reduced on the commons at Fairwood, Pengwern and Cefn Bryn. Reflective collars have not been put on sheep or ponies.

Reducing Stock Casualties on Sites with Vehicular Access

h.) Minchinhampton and Rodborough Commons, Gloucestershire (Source Andy McVeigh, Bucks Co Co and Jo Hodgson, NT) 9 out of 10 drivers hitting livestock are locals, living on or near the common, and many of the accidents are close to home! Either drivers are going on to auto-pilot and losing concentration near home, and / or are rushing (my own experience in Surrey was that Friday afternoon was a seriously dangerous time to be on the road as people rushed home for the weekend – I once had 3 near misses in about half an hour through people taking risks and cutting corners etc! – JS) Ten tips for installing cattle grids

          

Involve key stakeholders from day one – Highways Agency, consultants, landowner etc Good visibility on approach to grid – siting, gradient, landscaping and vegetation management Good signage Consult widely Adequate time and money Plan for difficult questions and objections from stakeholders Drainage to prevent grid filling up Hedgehog ramp Bypass lane for stock, horse drawn carriages, abnormal loads etc BS 4008 Monitor contractor during installation – it is easier to deal with any problems as they arise than get someone back to rectify them

Contacts Site

Contact

Tel.

Website

Epping Forest

Jeremy Dagley

020 8532 1010

jeremy.dagley@cityoflondon.gov.uk

Ashdown Forest Gower Commons Malvern Commons New Forest

Chris Marrable Siôn Brackenbury Rob Havard

01342 823583 01792 391670 01684 892002

ChrisM@ashdownforest.org

www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corp oration/living_environment/op en_spaces/epping_forest.htm# info www.ashdownforest.org/deer. html

Dutch shepherded flocks

(Ermelo) (Rhedense) (Loenen)

National Deer Collisions Project Minchinhamp ton and Rodborough Commons

sion.brackenbury@swansea.gov.uk rob@malvernhills.org.uk

www.malvernhills.org.uk

enquiries@newforestnpa.gov.uk

www.newforestcommittee.org. uk www.schapedrift.nl/ www.schaapskudde.nl/php/ge neral.php?Pageid=1

jim.swanson@grazinganimalsproject.org .uk

Dr. Jochen Langbein

01531 631344 01984 641366

Matt Stanway

01452 814213

www.deercollisions.co.uk

matt.stanway@nationaltrust.org.uk