Yet more on the SRWT draft plan. I really would rather not do this but duty calls:
If this was a concise document omissions might be excusable. But the decision was taken to make this a huge document and we know why. They believe that in the eyes of simple people – or busy people who can’t find the time to read it - that weight of words brings respect and credibility. To some of us who know the site and have been with the history of SWTs involvement for many years it just exposes them to more questions. The more pages are written the more doubtful statements are made. But even more significant is that after going over the top in quantity important and highly relevant things are actually missed out. Why are some things left out?
For two reasons:
1) Those writing the plan just don’t know as much about the site as they would like us to think, and 2) Because there are some things they would prefer not to acknowledge.
1 No mention of the changes made to the Graves Covenant. After considerable pressure from SWT and officers friendly to them in Sheffield Council the Charity Commission, following long deliberation and many misgivings, allowed SCC to give a lease to SWT for Blacka. This meant a change to the original clauses of the covenant which set public recreation as the chief purpose of the management. They now included another objective, that of conservation, which would allow the wildlife trust to have a role here. But the CC insisted that a key safeguard should be inserted to the effect that in the event of a conflict between recreation and conservation it would be recreation that should prevail.
2 The text of the management plan describes a number of basic features of the site such as infrastructure. It claims that the electricity power line that used to run across the centre of Blacka is still there. This was taken down several years ago after being first raised at a RAG meeting by members of Friends of Blacka Moor. The then manager at SWT was not particularly interested and wanted to talk about something else,but eventually wanted to claim credit after the public saw the immense improvement to the views! Is it just typical SWT sloppiness that its 'comprehensive' description of the state of Blacka is written by someone who doesn't know about this?
3 Roe deer are not even mentioned in the wildlife of Blacka yet are some of the most delightful wild residents!!! Clearly not as important as sheep to a wildlife trust!!! What use is something that brings no money, no grants or subsidies?