We get so few comments I thought it worth highlighting this one. I couldn't agree more but I don't even think they are considering the views of the rate payers!
Anonymous said...
I hope the council will put as much time into listening to the views of the people who use Bryn Euryn as they are in doing this unwanted feasibility study! The council are dangerously close to alienating any confidence local people have privalaged them with up to now. I suggest they back down graciously before all the already stressed locals become angry.
Another comment!
Anonymous said...
I totally agree with this comment. Maybe the 10 year Council management of Bryn Euryn needs to be looked at harder before they try to hastily remedy their mismanagement mistakes. There is much information out there about mowing regimes in areas where grazing is not feasible, little of which the Council has employed over the past ten years. Blanket short mowing of whole sites, as happened this year, will never sustain a healthy bio-diverse population of grasses, wildflowers, insects, mammals and birds.
28 October 2009 00:26
Tuesday 27 October 2009
Puppy Watch
Nothing to do with the Bryn and whilst many may not be dog lovers the link below may be of interest to some: -
http://www.northumbria.police.uk/about_us/dogs/puppycam/index.asp
http://www.northumbria.police.uk/about_us/dogs/puppycam/index.asp
Monday 19 October 2009
Feasibility Report Latest
As reported a few weeks ago the Council told us the feasibility report would be available a week before they meet to decide the future of the Bryn. We asked if it could be made available sooner as we were concerned 'it would be impossible for us review, share, assess and evaluate your feasibility study in the one week time frame you are allowing us'.
The council replied:-
Many thanks for your email in which you request that the feasibility study be made available at least 3 weeks prior to the meeting on the 23rdNovember.
I have discussed this here this morning with the Countryside and Rights of Way Manager, and unfortunately we are not able to meet your request.
It is quite normal for committee papers etc to be sent out a few days prior to meetings, and that is what our timescales will allow. If, at the meeting, the view of members is that they don’t feel they have had sufficient time to digest the contents of the report, then a further meeting can always be arranged. However the week prior to the meeting should give all individual members of the group (including of course your BE Users Assoc rep) time to read the report and highlight key issues. There will be plenty of opportunity at the meeting itself for clarification of points and addressing queries.
We will aim to have the report in a format that you can email out, which should save you plenty of time getting it out to members.
Anyone would have thought the huge turn out at the cricket club objecting to the proposed grazing would have been enough for the council to abandon their crazy plans but still they plod on with the producing the feasibility report. Now, it seems we may not get a decision at the November meeting and a further meeting can be arranged! What a waste of peoples time, this group only meets twice a year normally, does this mean we all have to wait till then for a final decision?
Perhaps the council feel by dragging it out people will get bored?
I think both Dave Jones MP and Darren Millar AM asked the council at the cricket club meeting to ensure there was enough time to consult adequately once the feasibility report was published. A week doesn't really seem enough does it?
Lets hope it's a meaningful report which answers the questions regarding the need for planning permission and the legal issues as well as the huge objections against. If so then the conclusion must be to forget about the plans for grazing?
The council replied:-
Many thanks for your email in which you request that the feasibility study be made available at least 3 weeks prior to the meeting on the 23rdNovember.
I have discussed this here this morning with the Countryside and Rights of Way Manager, and unfortunately we are not able to meet your request.
It is quite normal for committee papers etc to be sent out a few days prior to meetings, and that is what our timescales will allow. If, at the meeting, the view of members is that they don’t feel they have had sufficient time to digest the contents of the report, then a further meeting can always be arranged. However the week prior to the meeting should give all individual members of the group (including of course your BE Users Assoc rep) time to read the report and highlight key issues. There will be plenty of opportunity at the meeting itself for clarification of points and addressing queries.
We will aim to have the report in a format that you can email out, which should save you plenty of time getting it out to members.
Anyone would have thought the huge turn out at the cricket club objecting to the proposed grazing would have been enough for the council to abandon their crazy plans but still they plod on with the producing the feasibility report. Now, it seems we may not get a decision at the November meeting and a further meeting can be arranged! What a waste of peoples time, this group only meets twice a year normally, does this mean we all have to wait till then for a final decision?
Perhaps the council feel by dragging it out people will get bored?
I think both Dave Jones MP and Darren Millar AM asked the council at the cricket club meeting to ensure there was enough time to consult adequately once the feasibility report was published. A week doesn't really seem enough does it?
Lets hope it's a meaningful report which answers the questions regarding the need for planning permission and the legal issues as well as the huge objections against. If so then the conclusion must be to forget about the plans for grazing?
Tuesday 13 October 2009
Monday 5 October 2009
No grazing since 1925!
The extracts in the post below in which our helpful Chartered Surveyor & Arbitrator makes comments after studying the 'title' the council holds for the Bryn - he says there has been no grazing since 1925!
If he can determine this from the council's records how come the Countryside Service keep saying grazing in the 50's or 60's? As they admitted at the recent public meeting they have no evidence of this!
Perhaps they should make an apology and ensure they don't state the same thing again, especially to the press?
If he can determine this from the council's records how come the Countryside Service keep saying grazing in the 50's or 60's? As they admitted at the recent public meeting they have no evidence of this!
Perhaps they should make an apology and ensure they don't state the same thing again, especially to the press?
Sunday 4 October 2009
What a land professional thinks of the plans
We have received a copy of a letter sent by a member of the Bryn Euryn User Association to the Council’s Countryside Department. The author owns a property backing on to the Bryn and is also Chartered Surveyor & Arbitrator, well acquainted with land and grazing issues in his professional capacity. Please find below a couple of interesting extracts: -
I am writing this letter to you as a neighbour. I have to hand a copy of the Title the county holds for the 'BRYN'. Upon inspection of the Title there is a clear restrictive covenant which the county must adhere to.
The Conwy County Borough Council are successors to the Colwyn Bay Urban District Council
who held a lease for the 'Bryn' from 1925. That same council purchased the Freehold in 1932.
The restrictive covenant contained in the lease and Freehold title is referred to as clause 5. It
specifically reflects the use at that time and the reason for a Local Authority to acquire lands for
use as possible open space for leisure and recreation. The content of the clause prevents any
trade, business, profession or occupation whatever occurring upon the land other than:- Club
Room, pavilion, cafe or refreshment room associated with the leisure and recreation use.
This clause prevents the council from contemplating the fencing out areas of the 'BRYN' and the
occupation by animals provided by other parties on licence or other agreements whether for
monetary gain or free.
With reference to a similar local case: -
Planners instated that a Planning Application be submitted for change of use from recreation to agriculture. The proposed use of part of the 'BRYN' for agriculture use (grazing by any animal) will therefore necessitate a Planning Application with notice to every neighbour of the Application.
Please note that the original planning permitted relevant to 1947 was leisure recreation not
agriculture and has never since 1925 been used for agriculture.
Based on the two reasons in this letter I would suggest you seek legal advice and Planners
advice.
I obviously object to your proposal for the 'BRYN' and will advise the Objectors Association
similarly.
I hope to receive a response from you, in the meantime I will monitor the situation and if necessary advise the Association to apply to Court for an injunction if the Council breaches it's
own restrictive covenants and regulatory process.
We are very grateful for this expert advice and trust it will be considered by the council in their increasingly ‘unfeasibility report’. Indeed it seems to many of us that the council is just wasting time and money on an ill conceived plan which is massively opposed by almost all the users of the Bryn?
I am writing this letter to you as a neighbour. I have to hand a copy of the Title the county holds for the 'BRYN'. Upon inspection of the Title there is a clear restrictive covenant which the county must adhere to.
The Conwy County Borough Council are successors to the Colwyn Bay Urban District Council
who held a lease for the 'Bryn' from 1925. That same council purchased the Freehold in 1932.
The restrictive covenant contained in the lease and Freehold title is referred to as clause 5. It
specifically reflects the use at that time and the reason for a Local Authority to acquire lands for
use as possible open space for leisure and recreation. The content of the clause prevents any
trade, business, profession or occupation whatever occurring upon the land other than:- Club
Room, pavilion, cafe or refreshment room associated with the leisure and recreation use.
This clause prevents the council from contemplating the fencing out areas of the 'BRYN' and the
occupation by animals provided by other parties on licence or other agreements whether for
monetary gain or free.
With reference to a similar local case: -
Planners instated that a Planning Application be submitted for change of use from recreation to agriculture. The proposed use of part of the 'BRYN' for agriculture use (grazing by any animal) will therefore necessitate a Planning Application with notice to every neighbour of the Application.
Please note that the original planning permitted relevant to 1947 was leisure recreation not
agriculture and has never since 1925 been used for agriculture.
Based on the two reasons in this letter I would suggest you seek legal advice and Planners
advice.
I obviously object to your proposal for the 'BRYN' and will advise the Objectors Association
similarly.
I hope to receive a response from you, in the meantime I will monitor the situation and if necessary advise the Association to apply to Court for an injunction if the Council breaches it's
own restrictive covenants and regulatory process.
We are very grateful for this expert advice and trust it will be considered by the council in their increasingly ‘unfeasibility report’. Indeed it seems to many of us that the council is just wasting time and money on an ill conceived plan which is massively opposed by almost all the users of the Bryn?
Saturday 3 October 2009
Minutes of the Open Meeting to discuss grazing on Bryn Euryn and the Inaugural AGM of the Bryn Euryn Users Association, held on 7th September 2009 at Colwyn Bay County Cricket Club, Rhos-on-Sea.
Invited Guests:
David Jones MP
Darren Millar AM
Cllr David Roberts (Management Advisory Group - Chairman)
Cllr Philip Edwards (MAG member)
Cllr Merfyn Thomas (MAG member)
Cllr Roger Parry (MAG member)
Helen Jowett (Senior Countryside Officer)
Alun Jones (Bryn Euryn Warden)
Hilary Kehoe (PONT)
Community Beat Manager PC Richard Ward-Davies (Llandrillo-yn-Rhos)
Community Support Officer PCSO Louise Wigglesworth (Mochdre)
Bryn Euryn Users Association representatives:
Gill Harvey – Chair
Sharon Davies – Vice Chair
Susan Davies – Secretary
Kath Williams – Treasurer
Apologies:
John Osley (Countryside Council for Wales)
Tom Gravett (Countryside and Rights of way Manager)
Introductions:
The meeting was opened by Gill Harvey welcoming all guests and members of the public to the open meeting to discuss grazing on Bryn Euryn. Each guest introduced themselves to the audience and explained their positions in respect to the issue.
David Jones MP congratulated the Association on its formation and the aims to protect and preserve the area. He stated that fencing off the area would reduce people’s enjoyment and have a detrimental material effect. While he understood the reason for conservation, quangocrats should be accountable and ensure due weight should be given to the immense public feeling.
Cllr Merfyn Thomas supported David Jones and told the audience that he had voted against the feasibility study. Cllr Phil Edwards said the proposal for the feasibility study to introduce grazing was put forward by the council officers and the CCW. He said they had to look at the evidence before making a decision but that there were people in the area who supported grazing. He did not wish to spoil the enjoyment of the area but added that it might be decided to adjust the scheme to make it acceptable. Cllr David Roberts said he had voted in favour of the investigation but that it could either ‘go away’ or be amended, but that things had to change. He acknowledged that there is a problem with anti-social behaviour on the Bryn. Cllr Roger Parry said he had voted against the feasibility study, calling it a ‘crazy idea’.
Helen Jowett, speaking for Conwy Countryside Services, said her role is to oversee the work of the wardens and is currently working on the feasibility study. She had brought leaflets for anyone to take which explained the facts about the grazing and said they had not expected so many objections and that she was concerned about so much incorrect information. She said the local authority has a duty to maintain the grassland which has SSSI status but also has to balance its use by people. The feasibility study is looking at grazing one or two meadows with five ponies or donkeys per meadow for two months in the spring and four months summer/autumn. They will look at the cost of fencing, water, shelter and maintenance of the fencing and gates, as well as the management of the live stock and access for the public. Alun Jones said there are two aims, enjoyment for the public and the maintenance of the SSSI. He referred to there having been grazing in the 1950’s but this was disputed by several members of the audience, and went on to say that he didn’t see why it would cause a problem. Hilary Kehoe explained that she facilitates grazing and works with farmers and conservation bodies to provide animals for various sites in the area, Anglesey being one of the most recent.
General Discussion:
Gill Harvey to start the discussions said that at the moment Bryn Euryn has open access and that fencing would spoil the area. There are animal welfare as well as public health and safety issues to be considered.
A member of the audience asked who has a vote on the MAG committee, and it was answered that the councillors as well as outside bodies vote. Cllr Merfyn Thomas said there is so much pressure on open space that the Bryn should not be fenced. Although the council is facing a £5 million budget cut back per annum in the next few years. The fencing would cost £28,000 upwards, an 8 year payback period bearing in mind the £4,000 current cost of cutting the area.
Iris Roberts, a local teacher, said the scouts and children all use the site to play and that fencing would restrict this as livestock would pose a risk.
It was pointed out that vandals already use saws to cut down trees and that both fencing and livestock would be at risk.
The warden was asked what evidence he had of grazing in recent years and confirmed he didn’t have any but that aerial photos from the 1950’s highlighted the extent of current scrub encroachment on the meadow grassland.
Cllr David Roberts said there needs to be more diversity, not just dog owners. The area needs to be opened up to ramblers, schools, colleges and to allow children to see the animals. Responding, Sharon Davies said the Bryn is regularly used at present by all these organisations, and that the scouts had expressed concerns about the plan to introduce grazing as it may stop them using it. She added that animals can be seen at numerous areas elsewhere.
Charles Cubbin said the ponies or donkeys would not be safe due to the vandals and large number of dogs. The very loud burglar alarm on the cottage which recently sounded could cause livestock to charge the fences in terror. Also the restricted area would prevent ponies moving out of the way of any trouble, adding that the warden is not available at weekends, which is when the trouble usually occurs. He went on the say that he has a booklet describing the grassland in the 1950's when it managed itself.
PC Ward-Davies said the police are aware of the anti social problems on the Bryn and has seen the fires, but has not seen any evidence of needles behind the ruins. He urged people to report any sightings of problems as their statistics are based on calls received. A member of the audience said they had made calls but had had no response. It was noted that the police have concerns for the safety of the animals and who would be responsible for them.
David Jones MP was asked, as a lawyer, who would be responsible for the ponies and liable should a member of the public be kicked, and also regarding the droppings which could pose a risk of tetanus. It was also questioned who would provide the public liability insurance. David Jones replied that the simple solution is not to place livestock there and to listen to what the people say.
A member of the audience described himself as a responsible dog owner and said he was concerned over the fencing proposals, as there are few areas available for dogs to run free especially as the council are reducing them all the time. He added that animals would be a risk to dogs and prevent them from getting proper exercise while still being under control.
When questioned as to whether stock holders had been approached to see if there was any interest, Helen Jowett said they hadn’t, while Alun Jones said there had been some interest from a donkey owner. In response to the question as to how much the feasibility study was costing, the reply was, only time, council man hours. There were concerns by many that this was still a waste of time and money. The warden asked for people to be open minded.
Cllr Jennifer Geddes, from the audience, said wild ponies would stay away from people and were widely used in conservation as a means for controlling Green Oak and other scrub species. She then added that safety must come first.
The issue of ragwort was discussed. Horse owners stressed the danger to livestock as it damages the liver and ultimately causes death. The council response was that the ponies wouldn’t eat it but that the responsibility for its removal would rest with the grazier. It was pointed out that ragwort is a valuable source of nectar for insects including several endangered species, and that due to it being away from agricultural land it is in an ideal position. Concerns were raised about the cutting back of the meadow while the plants were still flowering and trees felled at a time when birds are nesting. The warden replied that the mowing takes place after the peak flowering period and is needed for scrub control. When asked why there is a need to control it, he relied, that some is acceptable but that too much encroaches on the rare grassland. Many people pointed out that the grassland hadn’t been grazed prior to the introduction of cutting in recent years, yet had still survived. The warden said their main priority is the upper meadow. When asked about how much the council would charge a grazier, Helen Jowett responded that a license would be issued but that they could not charge as there is a restriction over business use.
There was general concern expressed over the MAG meetings especially regarding the recent informal meeting held on site with no minutes when the feasibility study was agreed with a majority vote. Questions were asked as to lack of scrutiny, access of minutes and why nothing is available on the website. It was commented on as being undemocratic to vote on such an important issue at an informal meeting and secretive. Helen Jowett said past minutes were available from her on request.
Richard Raynor asked why councillors don’t reply to letters sent by constituents. Cllr David Roberts replied that he had a condition which meant he couldn’t view computer screens, and left the meeting, despite Mr Raynor trying to assure him that he hadn’t written to him.
Concerns were raised regarding the safety of the access road which was viewed as currently in poor condition. In response to questions it was ascertained that there are no quotes for fencing or water as yet, but that bowsers may be used. The feasibility study is to be completed by November as the Countryside staff have other priorities.
Donald Gorst pointed out that ladies use the Bryn with their dogs and meet with others to socialise. Fencing and livestock would deter many from enjoying this beneficial pastime.
Dr Keith Owen apologised for leaving the meeting early and reminded the officials of the huge amount of goodwill they currently have with volunteers clearing litter and notifying them and the police of problems. He said the council should work with the public to address valid concerns or risk the loss of this goodwill.
David Jones MP apologised for leaving early as he had another meeting to attend. He went on the say that the MAG members need to understand that the fencing and livestock proposals are deeply unpopular when they come to vote on the issue.
A motion to reject the grazing proposal was carried with a unanimous vote.
Darren Millar AM apologised for his late arrival due to a prior commitment. He questioned why the council was still continuing with the feasibility study with so many public objections and would they consult with the public and other stakeholders. Any decision would need to be democratic as even with grants from the CCW to help with costs, it would still ultimately be the people who will pay. He added we should resist this threat to an open public space especially as Bryn Euryn is the jewel in the crown of the area.
Bryn Euryn Users Association
Gill Harvey asked that the Association be formalised in order for the users to be represented on the MAG committee. The constitution of the new association was read by Susan Davies. This was accepted by a unanimous vote. The committee members were proposed, seconded and elected by a show of hands as listed above.
After a brief discussion it was voted that funds should be raised by subscription and that donations would be welcome to help meet running costs.
Gill Harvey thanked all guests and members of the audience for attending and closed the meeting.
Following the meeting, the police were given cans and two saws used by vandals the previous two weeks on the Bryn. They hoped they would be able to retrieve finger print evidence.
The date of the next meeting is yet to be confirmed.
Friday 2 October 2009
Feasibility Report
The council have advised a copy of the feasibility report will be given to us a week before the vote by the Management Advisory Group.
Would people like to see it publish here?
Is there any benefit holding a meeting to discuss findings? Is there time?
Should the council perhaps be publishing the report and carrying out public consultation themselves before taking any vote? Perhaps seeing the overwhelming objections to their plans expressed at the recent meeting they already know what most people think, in which case why are they bothering?
Would people like to see it publish here?
Is there any benefit holding a meeting to discuss findings? Is there time?
Should the council perhaps be publishing the report and carrying out public consultation themselves before taking any vote? Perhaps seeing the overwhelming objections to their plans expressed at the recent meeting they already know what most people think, in which case why are they bothering?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)