New Page 2

Most news items from previous months have been removed from this page to ARCHIVED NEWS on CONTENTS PAGE

LINKS TO ITEMS ON THIS PAGE
NATURAL ENGLAND	CARNYORTH COMMON
UNREASONABLE- OBSESSIVE – HARASSMENT – ANNOYANCE (10/07/2010)	MORE FACTS ABOUT THE CARNYORTH CATTLE GRID (24/07/2010) NEW
BUT NATURAL ENGLAND NOW OFFER TO MEET WITH SPM (10/07/2010)	# CONTACT NUMBER FOR PROBLEMS #
PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN (03/07/2010)	INFORMAL FORUM (17/07/2010)
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (03/07/2010)	NOW YOU SEE IT - NOW YOU DON'T (03/07/2010)
NATIONAL TRUST	MISCELLANEOUS
	A FENCE ON COMMON LAND IS PERCEIVED AS AN ABOMINATION (24/07/2010) NEW
	CORNISHMAN LETTER (10/07/2010)
	"WE'VE LIVED WITH THEM FOR CENTURIES" (03/07/2010)
	NOT DOING WHAT IT SAYS ON THE TIN Open Spaces Report (03/07/2010)
	INDEPENDENT COMPLAINTS REVIEWER (03/07/2010)

On Tuesday 20th July the Western Morning News published an article by Martin Hesp entitled Conservation of common land is fine – but give us access to it.

“For many people, access to their local common has been a part of their daily life since childhood, providing fresh air, a sense of belonging and identity and somewhere to take daily exercise or walk the dog, on land which feels as though it has remained unchanged for centuries……………”

A recent Freedom of Information request by SPM reveals the following interesting snippets:

October 2009 Cornwall Council’s Programmes Manager, Environment Service, confirmed that the council had no power to authorise a cattle grid across a bridleway and that this opinion was expanded by the Corporate Legal Services who confirmed that this also applied to public footpaths. So why doesn’t the Council abide by its own rules and get rid of this grid − now?

February 2010 Natural England held a site meeting at the cattle grid and commented that the issue had to be resolved quickly as Hilary Benn [previous Labour Government Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] knew about this problem. [SPM informed him!] Options for resolving the issue of this unlawfully installed cattle grid were discussed. Interestingly one of the three options considered was removal of the grid from the site and replacing it with a field gate, as had been approved by the former Cornwall County Council in the original Section 147 application by the then English Nature, and making good the track by back-filling the hole beneath the grid but leaving the by-pass gate and associated granite hedging. Yet two months after this meeting Natural England changed their mind and decided the issue was now the tenant’s problem. So what happened in the intervening period? We will probably never know if NE’s past record of secrecy is anything to go by.

The Cornwall Council Living Environment Manager confirmed that the Section 147 did not mention the cattle grid and that it should be moved – costs being borne by Natural England – and this would help retrieve some confidence from the local community, and that infrastructure (i.e. the cattle grid, gates etc) “needs to be correct” to enable management of the site for access, heritage and biodiversity. So implying the cattle grid is not ‘correct’ for these purposes.

May 2010 The Council’s Senior Enforcement Officer expressed strong disagreement that the issue of obstruction of a public footpath by the cattle grid had only been given the low Priority 4 category of ‘nuisance’ and that it should have been a Priority 2 ‘obstruction of a permanent nature’, and that all steps necessary should be taken to get the grid removed.

The opinions of these two relatively high ranking council officials − the Living Environment Manager and the Senior Enforcement Officer − were disregarded (or ignored) by the Corporate Director of Environment, Planning and Economy who considered the cattle grid “is in keeping with its surroundings” and that enforcement action “would not be appropriate” and that the file will be duly closed. I don’t think so. SPM will be making a complaint to the Council on this and other alleged inappropriate actions. It is odd that one official declares that enforcement action will be taken “when resources become available”; others want it to be removed asap; while another says that the file is closed.

An informal Heathlands Forum was held on Tuesday 13th July and attended by about 15 persons including representatives from St Just Town Council, Zennor Parish Council, Cornwall Council, Save Penwith Moors, Penwith Access and Rights of Way, The National Trust, Historic Environment Service, Open Spaces Society, and Cornwall Wildlife Trust. Natural England were notable by their absence.

The group walked around Carnyorth Common during which many of the problems created by the Natural England HEATH Project and Higher Level Stewardship agreement were pointed out and discussed. A future walk around this Common has been arranged by Save Penwith Moors to meet with a Natural England official from Truro when concerns and potential remedies can be discussed in greater detail.

These are a few of the words used by our Natural England Area Manager to describe Save Penwith Moors requests for information and for a response to various issues affecting our local landscape. And this despite Richard Benyon MP (Minister for Natural Environment at DEFRA) commending SPM for their “responsible approach” regarding disclosure of sensitive personal staff information released to us by Natural England, and the Executive Director, Corporate Services, writing to us from London on the same subject that: “I am grateful to you for alerting Natural England to this matter, which is now receiving my urgent attention as the Executive Director responsible for Information Assurance”.

Natural England responds to ministerial recognition of our ‘responsible attitude’ by refusing to answer our questions anymore.

Officials in Truro are now telling us off for asking too many questions that are, apparently, causing an unreasonable burden amounting to harassment of Natural England staff. We are accused of

· being “demonstrably obsessive and manifestly unreasonable” in the amount of correspondence that is “designed to cause disruption or annoyance”;

Don’t these thin-skinned people ever read newspapers, listen to the radio or watch TV: even the royal family, prime minister and leading public figures have to undergo biting criticism and ridicule: remember the satirical TV show Spitting Image?

Yet, despite Natural England’s whingeing, regular users of local moorland are expected to tolerate their unreasonable and annoying programme of physical and visual destruction while enduring inconvenience and harassment from roaming cattle.

It is perfectly obvious that information released to date by NE has shown up many instances of mediocre planning; unlawful, dubious and unsatisfactory works; waste of public money; poor project management; lack of any local consultation later followed by a total dismissal of local objections; release of sensitive personal information; and on and on…..

It is no wonder that Natural England do not want to open up any more cans of worms by releasing more information and accelerating their own corporate decay.

Despite above remarks, the Natural England South West Regional Director offered to travel down from Exeter to meet with Save Penwith Moors. Three members of our action group met with him on July 5th and spent two hours walking around Carnyorth Common where we were able to point out many problems. The meeting was well worth while and the view was expressed that we all wanted to find solutions. It is worth pointing out that this was the very first occasion in over two years of campaigning that any NE official has made a direct offer to SPM to meet face-to-face on location. It is a welcome change from past negative attitudes but what the long term outcome will be remains to be seen.

On the Natural England web site Nature on the Map and on a map supplied to us under Freedom of Information, the area of the Higher Level Stewardship agreement for Carnyorth Common clearly shows a strip of land not included as part of this agreement [see page 4 marked as A & B]. The issue was brought up with Natural England in March 2010 as cattle could wander over this land of unknown ownership at will, and two gates were also installed as part of the HEATH Project. A recent chance look at the same map showed that this strip of land had now mysteriously been added to the HLS agreement [see http://www.natureonthemap.org.uk/ and type into Search box AG00260864].

1. That the original map supplied under Freedom of Information did not represent the true area of the HLS agreement and was therefore false and misleading information.

2. That the owner of this land has now been traced and given permission for this land to be included as part of the HLS agreement. But, if this is so, then the HEATH Project gates and adjacent Cornish hedging were still installed many months ago without his/her authority and, additionally, if this is so, no information has been given to Save Penwith Moors even though it is a serious issue we have raised but have been ‘fobbed off’ with the response that it is all now up to the farmers/landowners to sort even though both the HLS agreement and the HEATH Project works were carried out through Natural England.

3. Finally, and the most serious possibility, is that the web site map has been deliberately ‘doctored’ to include this ‘unknown’ land after Save Penwith Moors challenged Natural England on the issues as described above.

Questions have been asked of Natural England but, if they run true to form, we are unlikely to get a realistic answer.

Our local Member of Parliament has now signed the necessary forms and sent our documents to the Parliamentary Ombudsman concerning alleged non-compliance by Natural England with the Aarhus Convention, other European Directives, and their own Communication Plan.

Papers have been sent to the Commissioner relating to Natural England’s refusal to release documents under Freedom of Information regarding receipted invoices for unlawful cattle grids.

Heritage Lottery Fund have not given satisfactory answers to the issue of alleged waste of public money on HEATH Project works that had to be ‘undone’: a complaint has now been sent to the Independent Complaints Reviewer

An article by Martin Hesp on moorland/commons was published in the Western Morning News on 30th June: Putting the future of common lands back on the national agenda. Mention was made of the Open Spaces Society report on Finding Common Ground that has some VERY important findings applicable to our campaign. Please read both of these by going to:

The Open Spaces Society has just completed an 84 page guide – Finding Common Ground – that takes account of local community interests in common land. The General Secretary of the OSS makes several points very pertinent to the Save Penwith Moors campaign and, with the guide, can be viewed on-line by following the link below. Among points made are that grazing, fencing etc can meet opposition “unless the community is involved in their making”; that fencing, even where desirable, is “a physical and psychological barrier and can change the nature of the common”; that “if these ideas [fencing, grazing etc] are introduced without involving the community the common will be a battle ground, when it should be a place for peaceful enjoyment, where all interests co-exist harmoniously”.

In view of the contents of this report it is very ironic that it was commissioned and funded by Natural England whose Common Land Major Project Manager says that commons, although mostly having designations protecting wildlife and archaeology, as well as the landscape itself, can be treasured at a local level “for quiet enjoyment, dog-walking, or simply as a place to escape and to enjoy scenery”; and that “We need to ensure that the interests of local communities are always at the heart of decision making, when considering the future of commons.”

There are some very pertinent remarks about the use of fencing "which is one of the most controversial issuers". [see the report especially Page 40 Item 7.1]

Perhaps Finding Common Ground should be required reading by all Natural England employees and PUT INTO PRACTICE. Shame they did not take this stance when they implemented the HEATH Project and Higher Level Stewardship schemes in West Penwith.