SAVE PENWITH MOORS

At the end of October I walked the National Trust owned moorland around Carn Galva and was both surprised and delighted to find that many old paths had been cut back and cleared of scrub. In addition to this I also discovered a very recently opened-up brand new path from Carn Galva across the valley to the summit of Watch Croft. However my euphoria was soon dampened by the sight of new barbed wire fencing in the process of being installed on two areas of Watch Croft ready for introduction of cattle next year. What a shame that the National Trust cannot accept the concerns of locals and tourists and withdraw from the HEATH Project, while maintaining paths and leaving the rest of these beautiful moors alone.

However it was really no great surprise to read in our local weekly newspaper The Cornishman (23/10/2008) that stock proofing is to go ahead around Carn Galva, Men-an-Tol, Lanyon Quoit and Carn Kenidjack: work started some weeks ago on the B3306 cattle grids at Carn Galva where the height of many moorland hedges have been raised. Preparations are now well under way for fencing Watch Croft, Men-an-Tol and Lanyon Quoit Crofts. All this frenzied activity despite Natural England saying “it has been swamped with letters from residents expressing concern about fencing and grazing of the moors”, and the Project manager declaring that “if there’s a common consensus and people don’t want it, we’re not going to go ahead and just do it” (The Cornishman 25/9/2008).

Who knows what the outcome of this Project will be when it ends in ten years time? Will open-access to the public be removed once this land is ‘improved’? The HEATH Project is not just about ‘managing’ moorland but also covers tourism and heritage. How long will it be before we see car park charges at present free sites, warden patrols, interpretative plaques, sign-posted visitor trails, litter bins, benches, picnic areas and toilet blocks? Will we eventually even be compelled to pay to look at enclosed ancient sites? All these are distinct possibilities: any lingering doubts will be dispelled by reading a document produced during 2006/7 by the Senior Project Officer, Cornwall Sustainable Tourism Project, with the long pretentious title of Natural England HEATH Project Tourism Deliverables Integrated Visitor Management Plan and Review of Visitor Experiences. An integrated visitor management plan to support sustainable tourism to heathland sites and enhance heathland management in Cornwall.

The patronising and ill-considered decision of Natural England and the National Trust to impose their views is to be deplored. These unelected quangos, with headquarters far away up-country, have, since inception of the Project several years ago, operated under a cloak of secrecy and disregard for public opinion worthy of a totalitarian state. Unnatural England has totally ignored the concerns and suggestions of many hundreds of anxious residents and visitors, and even failed to hold any meaningful consultation with elected parish, town and district councillors on a Project that has the potential to transform the last handful of safe open-access wilderness of West Penwith into a cross between a wartime prison camp and manicured enclosed parkland, decorated with a few iconic prehistoric monuments.

GENESIS OF ‘SAVE PENWITH MOORS’

The HEATH (Heathland, Environment, Agriculture, Tourism, Heritage) Project ran from 2004 to 2008 and was a joint partnership between Holland (Hoge Veluwe National Park), France (Brittany & Normandy), Wales (Pembrokeshire) and Cornwall (St Agnes, The Lizard and West Penwith); the Project has its Secretariat in Lille (northern France). In Britain the Project was funded through the Interreg IIIB North West Europe Programme and the Heritage Lottery Fund, with the lead partner being Natural England. In West Penwith the partnership with Natural England includes local farmers, commoners, Cornwall Wildlife Trust, The National Trust, Cornwall County Council, and Penwith District Council.

Heathland in north-western Europe expanded 3000-4000 years ago following the clearing of forests; in England, between the mid 18th century and 1978, 80% of heathland was lost. The instigators of this Project maintain that the decline of grazing, burning and cutting of heathland across Europe has resulted in many areas degrading to land dominated by bracken, gorse, and other scrub. The stated aim of the Project is to reverse this decline of heathland landscape that has been continuing over the past two centuries due to “intensive farmland, plantation forests and building development”, so that what remains “is fragmented, often neglected, and suffering from scrub and bracken encroachment and general misuse”.[1] However it is very important to realise that West Penwith moorland is very varied within relatively small areas: it is certainly not a mass of overgrown countryside.

The Project recognised heathland as a valuable resource which can be protected through the reintroduction of management practices that once created it, and that by actively managing heathland its biological, archaeological, cultural landscape, and recreational value can be maintained. One of the aims of the HEATH Project is to investigate links between heathland landscape, the tourist economy and visitor experience in order to evaluate methods of generating revenue from tourism.[2]

In order to achieve their aims one of the methods to be used – arguably the main method ─ is to be the grazing of cattle. But to do this it is a requirement that individual landowners should make the land stock proof to prevent animals from escaping: in practice this means the widespread erection of barbed wire and electric fences, access gates for people and horse riders, and cattle grids. The total budget for installing this infrastructure in West Penwith amounts to some £660,000;[3] those signing up to the Project will be paid in six-monthly instalments for a period of ten years. However these payments are highly complex and include various supplementary payments according to the nature of the land and requirements for managing it: there is a general figure of £200 per hectare for maintenance of lowland heathland plus £35 per hectare for bracken control supplement, £120 per hectare for management of scrub on archaeological sites, £220 for a bridle gate, and £1.20 per metre for post and wire fencing.[4] To put this figure into perspective: there are plans to graze a herd of 30 Belted Galloway cattle on the 150 hectare Carn Galva site[5] ─ this would attract a minimum annual payment of £24,000. The Natural England map dated 10/7/2008 for stock proofing at Lanyon Farm (Men-an-Tol Croft and Lanyon Quoit Croft) shows that over 3300 metres of single and double barbed wire fencing will be erected: at the minimum cost of £1.20 per metre this amounts to the staggering sum of nearly £4000. The Project is now being implemented ‘on the ground’ at various locations.

The Heritage Lottery Fund confirmed in a letter[6] that they awarded a grant of £979,500 to Natural England (then English Nature) towards the ‘Restoring the Sea of Heather’ project in December 2002: this project was later renamed the HEATH project that aimed to restore up to 3,526 hectares of maritime heathland across Cornwall, including Carnyorth Moor, Lanyon Farm, Carn Galva and Nine Maidens Common. Cornwall County Council is a sub-partner of the Natural England HEATH project and has contributed about £10,000 to the project.[7]

Some of this HEATH Project funding has gone towards financing a survey on sustainable tourism [8] and a booklet on managing archaeology on rough ground,[9] both related to the ‘benefits’ to be had from fencing and grazing the moors with cattle.

Over the last 6 months (probably December 2007- May 2008) 120,000 euros of site works had been completed in Cornwall, with a further 50,000 euros of contracts expected to be awarded over the next 3 months. It was reported that more than 40km (25 miles) of fencing, 2km of Cornish hedging and over 90 gates had been installed. Also 25 hectares of scrub and 15 hectares of bracken had been cleared, and 10km of firebreaks cut. Further work had either commenced, or were planned to do so, on 33 sites comprising more than 3000 hectares of lowland heath in West Cornwall. Finally it was announced that “the last six months of the year (i.e. 2008) will see a large amount of activity as the project nears its completion date.”[10] [NOTES: 1 kilometre = 0.62 mile; 1 hectare = 2.47 acres. At an estimated exchange rate of 70 euros for £1, 120,000 euros would equal over £17,000.]

Natural England say they are, generally, only replacing old fencing and that very little fencing will be erected along new stretches of boundary. But most existing barbed wire fences are so ancient, decayed, rusted, and partially covered by vegetation that – for decades – they have become virtually invisible or unobtrusive, having blended into the landscape. Brand new fencing posts and gates, most of which are to be placed where none have ever existed before, will present a completely different physical and visual impact on the environment to give a sense of enclosure rather than openness. A walk on the coast path between Porthgwarra and Nanjizal will show how totally alien to the beauty of the landscape such fencing can be.

The first I knew of plans to ‘manage’ the moors was when, in early April 2008, I read a notice close to the Four Parish Stone on Nine Maidens Common that had been put up by the commoners in conjunction with the Natural England HEATH Project: there was no mention of fencing or grazing on this notice. Public meetings were held on 11th and 12th April at the relatively remote and awkward to reach Trythall School near Newmill, and a public consultation meeting was held in St John’s Hall Penzance on 13th May that was attended by about 80 people, both for or against the management plans. These consultations were obligatory since this common is a registered common and requires the Secretary of State to give final permission for any permanent alteration to the land.

Apart from this management plan virtually everyone outside those directly involved with Natural England thought this was the extent of forthcoming fencing and grazing of our local ‘right to roam’ open spaces. How wrong we were.

Areas considered by the HEATH Project[11]

The HEATH project has 58 project areas located predominantly in the West Penwith, Lizard and St Agnes/Carn Brea regions.

Dark pink = areas being grazed already although not necessarily by the HEATH Project.

It was only quite by chance that I later learnt about plans to fence and graze the moors around Carn Kenidjack near St Just. This was followed up by internet searches that gradually revealed the true and awful extent of what was about to happen to the moors of West Penwith, an event that had been kept secret from residents and which, if implemented, would have devastating long-term consequences.

At the beginning of July a group of six concerned local residents came together under the name of SAVE PENWITH MOORS to encourage and co-ordinate opposition to the HEATH Project intended for West Penwith. Although there were a total of 32 sites under consideration by Natural England, it was decided it would be impossible to take into account all sites and that we should concentrate our main opposition to the four moorland areas we considered the most indispensable and popular for local recreational activities and the tourist industry:

3. Lanyon Farm (Men-an-Tol Croft and Lanyon Quoit Croft) [Madron Parish] area 18

RECREATION, TOURISM & CONSULTATION

‘Our’ four areas were all recently declared to be open access land with a right of the public of a freedom to roam. Proposed obstructions in these locations by fences and access gates will deprive locals and visitors not only of the physical ability of a ‘right to roam’, but also the impact of this infrastructure on the visual sensation of ‘open access’ – the wide open wilderness of upland areas of West Penwith.

Fencing-in and grazing these places will mean that dog walkers will have to keep their pets on a short lead at all times, even on a legal footpath; horse riders will need to unlock and close gates – children and the elderly may well have to dismount to do this and then have problems of remounting without the aid of any mounting block unless these are installed at all bridle gates; ramblers will be ‘funnelled’ towards new gates and not free to roam at will onto adjoining land. Groups of local schoolchildren often visit the moors and ancient sites as part of their education and may well be confronted by a group of cattle congregating around prehistoric monuments.

Tourists come from far away to visit our West Penwith prehistoric sites and enjoy the peace, quiet and safety of walking unspoilt open moorland. This will change if the HEATH Project goes ahead and is in direct contradiction to the successful soon-to-end Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) scheme.

People park here to walk to Men-an-Tol, Carn Galva and Nine Maidens Common – August 2008

A DEFRA website[12] on the West Penwith ESA states that the area has a unique beauty and character due in part to the extensive areas of inland downs that provide excellent habitats for wildlife and are rich in historic interest. Another web site[13] on the ESA in our area concerning ‘All Land’ exhorts that gateways should not be widened; that stock proof hedges and walls should be maintained using traditional methods and materials; that no permanent fences should be erected. On ‘Rough Land’, that includes all heathland, grazing with cattle was permitted as long as it was not under or over grazed although the erection of temporary fencing was expressly prohibited. It was specifically stated that, where bracken could not be controlled by mechanical means, then the herbicide asulam must be used. Yet the HEATH Project will destroy existing wildlife habitats through the grazing of cattle on the moors for the first time in many decades; new gates will be installed and old gateways widened; new cattle grids will be installed; new permanent fences will be erected; and new temporary electric fencing will also be installed. All these run directly contrary to the ESA scheme. Why is it now thought necessary to overturn several decades of this successful management when it is, seemingly, only a handful of professional conservationists and their ‘fellow-travellers’ who find any significant problem with the present landscape?

On a Cornwall County Council website dealing with latest news concerning the county’s Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) it is stated that the AONB Partnership has great concern over the closure of the ESA scheme that has, over the past twenty years, rebuilt Cornish hedges and improved habitats for plant, animal and bird life. The West Penwith ESA was one of the first to be established in Europe and offered incentives to farmers to “safeguard and enhance the particularly high landscape quality of the area and its historic and wildlife value.” Penwith District Council’s economic study highlighted the importance of the ESA in maintaining farm income and quality of the landscape, as well as the way in which this contributes to the tourism industry in the area. The Manager of the AONB Partnership expressed his concern that twenty years of hard work could be lost and “more importantly the landscape itself could be threatened. And it is this landscape that attracts most visitors to this area and the enormous economic benefits that they bring with them”.[14]

All four areas our group has considered are within the West Penwith Area of Outstanding Beauty: erection of fencing, gates and cattle grids will hardly add to this outstanding beauty – just the opposite.

Areas 2, 3 and 4 in our list of endangered locations form a uninterrupted large fenced-in zone divided by additional fencing according to the various landowners, and are prime locations of visitor attraction containing, as they do, the Men-an-Tol (one of the most frequented prehistoric sites in West Cornwall), Lanyon Quoit and the Nine Maidens Stone Circle, as well as the ruins of the prominent Greenburrow engine house, once part of Ding Dong Mine.

During the year there are a number of foreign and British coach tours that include a visit to the Men-an-Tol and Lanyon Quoit, as well as many hundreds of individuals walking to these sites and enjoying the wilderness of the moors. To date (1st October 2008) I have spoken to dozens of people outside my home (Men-an-Tol Studio) and not a single person has been in favour of fencing and grazing cattle in this area. In general conversation with the public about 80% are horrified at the HEATH Project proposals: about 15% don’t care either way and a very small percentage support the Project – these are usually people who are going to make money through installation of the infrastructure (fencing etc) or by grazing, or, possibly, have a close relative or friend who will gain financially from the Project.

In addition I have had feedback from two tour companies expressing their opposition and many individuals – British, German, Norwegian, Swiss and others – have signed our protest leaflets. A significant number of visitors have also taken the trouble to sign these leaflets and send them back to me by post – so indicating their strength of feeling against the HEATH Project.

The booklet ‘Nine Walks around St.Just and St.Ives’ recently produced by the St.Just Heritage Area Regeneration Project, managed and part funded by Penwith District Council (PDC) and St.Just Town Council amongst other organisations, and sold in the PDC Tourist Information Centre in Penzance, states under Walk 2 – St.Just to Carn Kenidjack – that one of the features on the walk is the ‘haunted carn’ and the “sweeping moorland scenery and panoramic views”. Carn Kenidjack itself is described as the “most evocative of all the carns in Penwith”. Barbed wire fences and gates will hardly improve this panoramic view.

In 2006/7 a report was drawn up by Jemma Roberts for Natural England on sustainable tourism in relation to the HEATH Project. In this survey she notes: “Surveys and interviews were carried out with local people and visitors across the county and the findings have been collated and analysed to draw out the key responses and themes”[15] and that: “Consultation has taken place in several stages with a variety of stakeholders; business enterprises, tourism providers, visitors, local communities, agency representatives and site managers. Consultations took the form of workshops, surveys, questionnaires and interviews.[16]

Although now retired, I ran an art and publishing business at Men-an-Tol Studio since 1980 selling pictures of the local landscape and books of walks to local antiquities to visiting locals and tourists. During 25 years I had thousands of visitors from all over Britain and the world who expressed their appreciation of the feeling of peacefulness, freedom and wilderness on the moorland with its numerous ancient sites far from the noise, crowds and traffic of modern life. Although complaints are sometimes made that a few paths might be overgrown and difficult to get through, I have never met anyone who has complained that the moors are overgrown with bracken and gorse and present a ‘problem’: no one has ever said that they would like to see brand new barbed wire fencing, gates and grazing cattle to get this vegetation cleared away.

My business is the closest non-farming business to the moors and close to where people park their cars to walk there, yet I was never been consulted about the HEATH Project and neither has the proprietor of the nearby Tea Rooms at Lanyon Farm.

Apart from the statutory obligation of the Nine Maidens commoners to hold public consultations, there has never been any detailed public announcement by Natural England of their intention to fence and graze these moors (and coastal sites) since the Project was first considered a few years ago – a Project that, if implemented, we believe will have a far reaching negative impact on local tourism, income, and enjoyment of our last few remaining uncluttered open spaces – inland and coastal. Decrease in visitor numbers once it becomes known about will inevitably lead to a loss of income to West Penwith – one of the poorest regions in Western Europe.

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND WILDLIFE

Because we do not want to see long stretches of brand new barbed wire fencing and numerous new gates erected on the open moors, our group is often accused by officials of Natural England of being against change, and that there is, in fact, no such thing as natural wilderness or natural landscape.

However it is Natural England itself that refuses to acknowledge that the moors have changed over the centuries, and now wish to turn back the ‘environmental clock’ to an unspecified era that few, if any, local residents can remember. Jon Brookes of the National Trust speaking of Carn Galva said: “The habitat used to be woodland and that’s what it all wants to get back to.”[17] But how far back into the past does the HEATH project want to go? Who decides if it is 50 years, 500 years or the Bronze Age? Over the past centuries hundreds of acres of former moorland have been cleared – some as recently as the 1970’s – and are now green fields grazed by cattle. Should not these also be returned to moorland?

Natural England quite rightly point out that the moors are the result of millennia of human activity. This is perfectly obvious as can be seen by the many prehistoric monuments and field systems on the moors, as well as more recent medieval activity.

Yet in its own literature Natural England acknowledges that a natural environment does actually exist. To quote again from Jemma Roberts on sustainable tourism:[18] “Natural England’s Strategic Direction 2006-2009 states that it is here to conserve and enhance the natural environment [my emphasis], for its intrinsic value, the well being and enjoyment of people and the economic prosperity that it brings.” Natural England has therefore been charged with four strategic outcomes, one of which is: “England’s natural environment will be conserved and enhanced.”

I would point out that it is the present perceived untouched natural wilderness of these open spaces that brings so many locals and visitors to the area, not how it might have looked decades or centuries ago. Jemma Roberts again: “The idea of widening paths to allow increased numbers to visit was largely opposed, with the common reason being that increased numbers on sites would detract from the sense of “baroness” [sic] and “wilderness” (key reasons for visiting in the first place). One visitor met on site highlighted this area was “one of the few places left in Cornwall to really get away from the crowds”, while another highlighted the sense of “isolation as the most appealing feature of the area”.[19] It is this highly valued and increasingly rare sense of open wilderness that our group feel will be totally destroyed by erection of visually and physically obtrusive fencing and access gates.

‘Our’ areas proposed for HEATH Project management mentioned above are, in many parts, a mixture of heathers, grasses, bramble, bracken and gorse – the latter mostly being of the native western gorse species that flowers in the late summer and makes, together with the flowering heathers, a delightful mix of yellow, purple and lilac on many areas of the Penwith moors.

The site notice at Baker’s Pit near Nancledra, Penzance [a Cornwall Wildlife Trust scheme as part of the HEATH Project] notes that western gorse grows to a height of about 1 metre and “is important as it provides ideal nesting sites for birds and hosts a range of invertebrates.”[20] Yet Carnyorth Moor, Carn Galva and Lanyon Farm all contain large areas of western gorse – admittedly mixed with areas of dense bracken and scrub – and will be grazed by cattle “to control bracken and promote a better habitat for birds and butterflies”.[21] Surely the impact of heavy cattle will do untold damage to native gorse and the wildlife that already inhabit these moors; in fact Jemma Roberts warns of the impact on flora and fauna by excessive numbers of human beings and that: “Direct visitor impacts on the heath environment can include disturbance of feeding and breeding patterns of heathland wildlife” and that “Ground nesting birds are particularly vulnerable to human disturbance”.[22] Surely introduction of cattle will cause far more direct impact on the environment than humans?

ARCHAEOLOGY

The archaeological establishment and the Cornish Ancient Sites Protection Network (CASPN) support introduction of cattle to areas where there are internationally well-known and often visited sites, in particular both Tregeseal Circle near Carn Kenidjack and Nine Maidens Circle at Boskednan; also Lanyon Quoit and the Men-an-Tol holed stone.

On 10th October 2006 a story was posted on the Cornwall County Council website concerning repairs to the Trippet Stone Circle on Bodmin Moor to which the public were invited to look at on site.^{^[23]} It was reported that Ann Preston-Jones, at that time Cornwall County Council Field Monument Warden, had said: “A marked feature of the circle is the erosion around the base of each of the stones, a problem arising from a combination of factors: the soft damp peaty ground, the poor drainage, and stock rubbing against the stones. The eroded holes are up to 5 metres across and 0.6 metres deep. Their large size undoubtedly explains why two of the stones are leaning and others have fallen.”

Just over a year later a letter was published in The Cornishman on 1st November 2007 titled ‘Will fences destroy last unspoilt landscape?’ Shortly afterwards an article was written in response to this letter under the auspices of the HEATH Project and published on their web site with the title of ‘Why are cattle being re-introduced to Carn Kenidjack?’ Under the section of this response dealing with historic features it was stated that fencing around archaeological features would be unnecessary. Reservations about the destructive potential of cattle did not appear to worry Preston-Jones, now Cornwall’s Historic Environment Field Advisor for English Heritage, who had recently stated that: “I personally do not have any objections to the grazing of Carn Kenidjack, and believe that it has the potential to be of benefit to both archaeology and wildlife”. She goes on to claim that the area would have been grazed in the past and this was the best traditional and sustainable way to prevent the common becoming totally overgrown. The article continued: “At present, local groups have to actively cut scrub around from the archaeological sites to keep them visible. The introduction of cattle should hopefully reduce the need for this.”[24]

Cattle may well have grazed some of these moorland areas in the past but this was because farmers had to try and scrape a precarious living from an impoverished landscape. Today this is not the case: it is the attraction of being paid out of the public purse that motivates grazing. If this is not the case why have the moors been left to fend for themselves for the past half century or longer? (I have walked Penwith moors over 2,500 times over the past 40 years and never encountered more than a few stray animals – never a sign of any persistent grazing.) The clearance of bracken and gorse in the distant past had far more to do with the cutting of the former for animal bedding and the latter for fuel – as was still happening in St.Just some 35 years ago.[25]

Four major sites at risk from cattle damage: Bosiliack Ring Cairn, Lanyon Quoit, Nine Maidens Circle and Men-an-Tol

Use of the word ‘hopefully’ implies that the outcome of this project is an unknown quantity. The Field Advisor had apparently forgotten the reasons for repair of the Trippet Stone Circle a year earlier, and that in the early 1990’s she was involved with stabilising the Men-an-Tol after it became loose through the sheer volume of people hauling themselves through it, so creating an often wet or muddy hollow each side of the holed stone. The proposed grazing areas of Men-an-Tol Croft, Lanyon Quoit Croft and Nine Maidens Common contain numerous fragile prehistoric and medieval field systems, barrows, ring cairns, a chambered cairn (Bosiliack), an ancient well (Venton Bebibell), the Four Parish Boundary Stone with incised cross, and areas of medieval tin streaming. Then there are the world famous holed stone and quoit, as well as the cut-down menhir close to the Nine Maidens Stone Circle where the ground has been described by the HES as often very boggy.[26]

Our other main area of concern is Carnyorth Moor (Carn Kenidjack) where most of the south-eastern half is a single large scheduled ancient monument in its own right, with numerous prehistoric and medieval field systems, chambered cairns, rounds, barrows and holed stones. Other prehistoric sites lie outside this scheduled area but still within the proposed HEATH Project: these include barrows, a chambered cairn, and the Tregeseal Stone Circle where some of the stones are only just embedded in the earth. Will not heavy cattle create even more damage around waterlogged archaeological sites as happened at the Trippet Stones?

Yet despite enthusiasm for grazing cattle to ‘hopefully’ clear bracken and gorse from archaeological sites ─ are cattle expected to eat this growth or merely trample it down? ─ the HES booklet on Managing Archaeology advises that: “Vegetation clearance on and around visible above-ground archaeological remains must be done manually with hand or power tools, or by spraying,” and that “manual methods are generally suitable only for small areas, but can be undertaken by suitably trained and supervised volunteers.” “Manual spraying is often the most appropriate method for small areas…”[27] Why therefore is it now considered acceptable for cattle to be used for clearance around ancient sites?

The HES website on access to monuments[28] states that archaeological sites are an essential part of the Cornish landscape and that while some sites may be “quite robust” others, although appearing to be very stable, may be “fragile and vulnerable to disturbance” even though they have survived for millennia. They make the important point that the “archaeological value of sites often lies not so much in their visible remains, but in the accumulated layers of soil and stone beneath the modern turf”, and that these contain irreplaceable data about the lives of those who built, used and adapted them in a changing environment: “It is essential to avoid any disturbance to these sites if their archaeological value is to be preserved and they are to provide inspiration and enjoyment to future generations.” They warn us that it is an offence to disturb Scheduled Monuments “in any way”, and that undisturbed sites can have great ecological value and “the plants and other living creatures which share these sites with us should also be respected and left as far as possible untroubled.” When visiting these ancient sites people are reminded that it is “unwise” to climb onto walls or try to remove stones; also that lighting fires and digging holes “are not appropriate activities”. In a final appeal they conclude: “Please respect other visitors’ right to quietly enjoy their own experience of the site.”

But how will cattle be kept off the numerous fragile prehistoric field systems and other remains, many of which are now precariously preserved beneath the very vegetation that cattle are supposed to destroy? Will cattle congregating around the ‘stones’ and along paths help visitors to “quietly enjoy” the area?

The archaeological establishment does not seem to know what to do or what to expect from this experimental Project. On the one hand they warn against any disturbance of the sites and nearby plants and other living creatures, and propose that site clearance should be done by hand or spraying. Yet on the other hand they advocate introduction of large heavy animals to clear scrub from around sites, with the inevitable consequence that these cattle will churn up the ground and create muddy circles around erect stones that they love to use as rubbing posts; destabilise the stones themselves; trample flowers and plants; and disturb ground-nesting birds.

It is our contention, and that of many other members of the general public, that scrub around ancient sites should be cleared by hand or mechanical means, and that introduction of free roaming cattle into fenced areas containing numerous scheduled monuments of great importance will not only cause irreparable damage to the sites themselves but will deter locals and tourists from visiting these sites, and that the present impression of monuments being located in a wide open unspoilt space will be ruined – not preserved – for future generations.

The areas we are most worried about contain many ancient sites as shown by the maps below drawn by Craig Weatherhill.

Orange area and circled orange = scheduled ancient monument including one single large area

CATTLE AND PUBLIC ACCESS

Escaped cattle at the stile leading to Men-an-Tol (17/9/2008) - a portent of things to come when the HEATH Project is completed.

Cattle are notoriously unpredictable and their presence on popular tourist and recreational areas is bound to deter many people from visiting these places, as well as having the potential of causing accidents and injury. The following selective information (my text emphasis) is taken from Health and Safety Executive (HSE): Cattle and public access in England and Wales information sheet Reference Agriculture Information Sheet No 17EW (web-only version updated 11/06) which should be referred to for the full text.

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW) gave the public a right to walk on mapped access land – mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land – as well as existing rights to use public rights of way. In West Penwith this includes most, if not all, of the 32 sites proposed for possible fencing and grazing by cattle and this poses potential problems for members of the public.

The HSE notes that one of the two major factors involving incidents between cattle and members of the public concerned walkers with dogs but that many other incidents were not reported to the HSE. They go on to point out that “all large animals are potentially dangerous” and that when under stress – weather conditions, illness, aroused maternal instincts, and unusual disturbance – even normally placid cattle may become aggressive, so that all breeds should be treated with respect. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1974 require employers and the self-employed to assess risks from their work activities to which employees or others are exposed, and that, in most cases, the Animals Act 1971 makes the keeper of an animal “strictly liable” for injuries caused by their stock.

On land to which CROW applies “it may be possible under some circumstances to restrict access to avoid danger to the public” even though the public rights of way still remain usable. There is therefore a potential risk that the public’s right to walk on open access land could be denied at some time in the future although it is unclear as to what “some circumstances” might refer.

The HSE advise that the amount and type of public access to land should be taken into account when considering where to keep animals: large regular groups of walkers with dogs, groups of children and infrequent individual walkers. All these are factors that apply in particular to the three significant areas of archaeological interest visited by members of the public: Carn Kenidjack (Tregeseal Circle and Holed Stones), Lanyon Farm (Lanyon Quoit, Bosiliack Barrow and Men-an-Tol), Nine Maidens Common (Boskednan Circle and barrows, Greenburrow engine house).

Have the relevant landowners/farmers undertaken risk assessments and will these be made available to the public? And who exactly will be liable for any injury caused by cattle, barbed wire, electric fences and cattle grids?

SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS TO HEATH PROJECT

2. Loss of the last few remaining areas of physical and visual open wilderness areas including the only large safe inland area for recreational purposes near St.Just.

6. The various agencies responsible for both archaeology and the environment have contradictory opinions as to how to carry out management of their respective responsibilities; ‘experts’ appear to have no idea of the outcome of the HEATH Project.

7. The successful ESA scheme that has kept the moors open and free of cattle is to be completely overturned by the HEATH project.

8. The financial benefits to a very few individuals and any environmental concerns expressed by the HEATH project and others are far outweighed by use of these few remaining ‘wild’ areas of open countryside by thousands of locals and visitors for recreational and educational enjoyment. The HEATH Project is an exercise in experimental land control and management, the outcome of which is entirely unpredictable. Such experiments should be done on land away from that in constant use by the public.

SOME SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS

Hand clearance of scrub from two ring cairns near the Nine Maidens Circle – 2007

Mechanically cleared paths on Nine Maidens Common and Men-an-Tol Croft (September/October 2008).

Overgrown moorland areas, fire breaks, tracks, footpaths and archaeological sites should be cleared by hand or mechanical means – as has always been done in the past (or by spraying periodically with the herbicide asulam that effectively kills bracken), not by grazing cattle with their obligatory stock proofing . Apart from this, these areas should be left as they are, as they have been for decades free from human interference for the benefit of the public to enjoy.

If, as seems most likely, the intended stock proofing of the moors is fully implemented and cattle introduced in the spring of 2009, then our group intends to keep a register of any traffic accidents by the cattle grids on B3306, injuries and intimidation by cattle, difficulty of a 'right to roam' open-access land, or other comments by members of the public - locals and tourists - so that appropriate action can be taken. If you are reading this and have already visited any areas on the coast or inland where you have cause to complain or to voice your opinion on what has taken place please get in contact by writing or emailing to the contact address at the top of this page.

CONTACT ADDRESSES

DEFRA Customer Contact Unit, Eastbury House, 30 - 34 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TL

HEATH PROJECT Programme Director, Joint Technical Secretariat, Interreg Ivb NWE, M. Ruut LOUWERS, ’Les Arcuriales’, 45, rue de Tournai, 6/D, F-59000 Lille, France Tel : +33 3 20 78 55 00 ruut@nweurope.eu| www.nweurope.eu

HEATH PROJECT, Assistant Project Manager and Partnership Manager Natural England, Joe Oliver, Pydar House, Pydar Street, Truro, Cornwall TR1 1XU tel office 01872 245045 tel direct line 01872 245035 email:joe.oliver@naturalengland.org.uk

HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT SERVICE CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL, Kennall Building, Old County Hall, Truro, Cornwall, TR1 3AY Email: hes@cornwall.gov.uk Tel: 01872 323 603

MP FOR ST.IVES CONSTITUENCY, Andrew George MP, Constituency Office, Trewella, 18 Mennaye Road, Penzance, CORNWALL TR18 4NG

NATURAL ENGLAND Area Manager Cornwall, Devon, Isles of Scilly, Matthew Carter, Pydar House, Pydar Street, Truro TR1 1XU

PENWITH DISTRICT COUNCIL Head of Tourism, Dominique Gabry, St.Clare, Penzance, Cornwall TR18 3ED

PENWITH/KERRIER RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION, Area Access Officer, Jill Goodman, Challs, Landrayne, Launceston PL15 7LZ jill@eastgatebarn.co.uk

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT, The Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR

THE NATIONAL TRUST, Devon and Cornwall Region, West Penwith Office, Jon Brookes, Treveal, Zennor, St.Ives, TR26 3BW 01736-796993

REFERENCES

[1] http://www.theheathproject.org.uk/

[2] http://www.regsw.org.uk/content/news/viewitem.aspx?artID=4481

[3] Email dated 21st July 2008 received from Joe Oliver, Assistant Project Manager and Partnership Manager, The HEATH Project, Truro, TR1 1XU

[4] http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/pdfs/es/hls-payment-booklet.pdf

[5] The Cornishman 21/8/2008 ‘Trust’s cattle grid proposal opposed’ the report gave 150 acres but this was later found to be an error and should have read 150 hectares

[6] Letter from Tom Brewer, Acting Casework Manager, South West Team, Heritage Lottery Fund, Exeter, his ref: HF-00-00859/2 dated 23/9/2008

[7] Copy of letter sent to Andrew George MP by Richard Fish, Director Planning, Transportation & Estates, Cornwall County Council, ref:RJF/MMH dated 29/8/2008

[8] During 2006/7 an integrated management plan for tourism was produced by Jemma Roberts, Senior Project Officer Cornwall Sustainable Tourism Project (CoaST Project) as part of the Natural England HEATH project http://www.heathproject.org.uk/content_pdf/en/Action_46_Integrated_Visitor_Management_Plan_CoaST1217254215.pdf

[9] Managing Archaeology and Historic Landscapes on West Cornwall’s Rough Ground, Cornwall County Council Historic Environment Service 2008

[10] Information from Natural England The HEATH news Summer 2008 Issue 3. These figures probably date from late May or early June.

[11] http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=28953

[12] http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/regulat/forms/erdp/esa/wpesaguide.pdf

[13] http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/docs/national/annexes/annexx/wprex2.htm

[14] http://www.cornwall-aonb.gov.uk/latestnews.html

[15] 2006/7 Jemma Roberts Natural England HEATH Project Tourism Deliverables Integrated Visitor Management Plan and Review of Visitor Experiences. An integrated visitor management plan to support sustainable tourism to heathland sites and enhance heathland management in Cornwall http://www.heathproject.org.uk/content_pdf/en/Action_46_Integrated_Visitor_Management_Plan_CoaST1217254215.pdf page.3

[16] Jemma Roberts 2006/7 page.16

[17] The Cornishman 4/9/2008

[18] 2006/7 Jemma Roberts Natural England HEATH Project Tourism Deliverables Integrated Visitor Management Plan and Review of Visitor Experiences. An integrated visitor management plan to support sustainable tourism to heathland sites and enhance heathland management in Cornwall http://www.heathproject.org.uk/content_pdf/en/Action_46_Integrated_Visitor_Management_Plan_CoaST1217254215.pdf

[19] Jemma Roberts 2006/7 section 5.3.2 Visitor Experience and resource protection

[20] Personal observation September 2008

[21] The Cornishman 4/9/2008 page 8 re Carn Galva

[22] Jemma Roberts 2006/7 section 3.4.2.1 Direct impacts

[23] http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=35242

[24] http://www.heathproject.org.uk/content_pdf/en/Web_article_Nov_07.pdf

[25] Personal knowledge of the Barnes family who cut furze for fuel and stored it in the ‘back house’.

[26] http://www.historic-cornwall.org.uk/a2m/bronze_age/stone_circle/boskednan/boskednan.htm

[27] Managing Archaeology and Historic Landscapes on West Cornwall’s Rough Ground, Historic Environment Service, Cornwall County Council, 2008, Page 12. Tackling Vegetation

[28] Cornwall’s Archaeological Heritage Access To Monuments, compiled by the Historic Environment Service of Cornwall County Council http://www.historic-cornwall.org.uk/a2m/

[29] The Men An Tol Management and Survey, Ann Preston-Jones 1993 Cornwall Archaeological Unit, Cornwall County Council

[30] England’s Riviera Harris Stone opp p.276; The Cornish Coast and Moors Folliott-Stokes 1912 opp p.171

[31] Preliminary Report on the Excavation of a Chambered cairn, Huts, and Field System at Bosiliack, Madron, West Cornwall, August-September 1984, Institute of Cornish Studies, University of Exeter, Cornwall County Council, Charles Thomas and Jeanette Ratcliffe

[32] Annual Report of Traffic and Collision Statistics 2005; TRAFFIC AND COLLISIONS IN CORNWALL, Richard Fish, Department Director; Cornwall County Councilhttp://www.cornwallstatistics.org.uk/media/pdf/p/h/Traffic__Collisions_2005_ALL.pdf]

Top of page Next Page Back to SAVE PENWITH MOORS HOME PAGE