Council against Heath scheme
ST JUST Town Council has taken a stance on the moorland cattle grazing debate with councillors voting eight to two against supporting Natural England's Heath Project.
The project that subsidises farmers for stockproofing land with fencing and grazing cattle and carrying out controlled burning in its stated efforts to open up moorland strangled by gorse was considered ill-conceived by a majority of the council.
Cllr Francis Angwin, a landowner with a personal interest in the project, abstained from the vote.
Acknowledging the need for gorse management but stating that fencing affected access, Cllr Kevin McFadden said while the town council has no powers of persuasion in this matter, "We must make our views known or it will be assumed we are in favour".
Cllr Bernard Rees said he felt monitoring stated to occur once a year at random farms was insufficient.
However, Cllr David Stevens, who joined deputy town mayor and district councillor Morley Thomas to vote against the council's stance, said Carnyorth moor, an area listed among the Heath Project's proposed schemes, was becoming extremely difficult to access.
"You are limited to the tracks between the bracken and the gorse and the fact is that the scheme's plans for this particular area actually proposes to take away more fencing than it intends to erect, I certainly would not be voting to reject this 100%," he said.
The council is writing of their view to the Secretary of State, Natural England and St Ives MP Andrew George.








Comments
by Pendeen resident, Pendeen
Friday, October 03 2008, 10:26PM
“WELL DONE ST JUST COUNCIL!!!!!!
Thanks for the support! The notion that there would be more fences removed than erected is fanciful.Along with the idea that the gorse and bracken would be reduced by grazing! Since when do cattle graze on Gorse Bracken? Also the fact that the terms of the proposal state that no supplemntary fodder to be fed to grazing stock would have meant that the animals grazed on the moorland would soon become mal-nourished and in turn lead the owners to cruelty charges ...A fact conveniently lost in the debate!”