Feasibility Exercise in respect of the potential for grazing on Bryn Euryn

Sorry some of the formatting has been lost but please see below the long awaited feasibility study, let us know what you think!

Conwy County Borough Council

Highways and Infrastructure Services

Feasibility Exercise in respect of the potential for grazing on Bryn Euryn
Local Nature Reserve


November 2009

CONTENTS





Page number
1 Introduction
3
1.1 Background to Bryn Euryn – designations and management
3
1.2 Background to SSSI management
3
1.3 Background to the feasibility exercise
4
2 Feasibility Assessments
5
2.1 Legal restrictions
5
2.2 Livestock and grazing considerations
6
2.3 Interest from potential graziers
7
2.4 Fencing
7
2.5 Public access
7
2.6 Water source
8
2.7 Access to land by grazier
8
2.8 Division of responsibilities between grazier and Conwy CBC
8
2.9 Grazing animals as an attraction
9
2.10 Carbon Footprint
9
3 Cost / Benefit Analysis
9
4 Risk Assessment
10
5 Summary of outstanding issues
10


Appendix 1 – Risk Assessment

Appendix 2 – Lookers Action Plan

Appendix 3 – Grazing options map

1 Introduction

1.1 Background to Bryn Euryn – designations and management
Bryn Euryn is one of 22 Countryside Sites managed by the Countryside and Rights of Way Service for informal countryside recreation and nature conservation. The nature conservation interest of the site has long been recognised, as has the high level of recreational use. The site also has archaeological interest, with the summit hillfort and Llys Euryn mansion both being Scheduled Ancient Monuments. The Council owns 25.5 hectares of the hill.
Much of the site is designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) as it is of national importance for its biological interest i.e. the semi-natural calcicolous grassland communities, including four Nationally Scarce plant species. Bryn Euryn is one of eight SSSIs in Conwy which are notified for their calcicolous grassland/woodland interest. Lowland calcareous grasslands are a key habitat in the Biodiversity UK Action Plan, requiring priority protection and having an internationally important status.
In March 1997, the Planning Committee resolved to progress the declaration of the area as a Local Nature Reserve (LNR), to reflect its importance for wildlife together with its community/educational value, a process which would be facilitated by a Management Advisory Group (MAG). In October 1999 Bryn Euryn was officially declared a LNR. The MAG, which consists of local councillors and representatives of local/national bodies, continues to meet biannually to oversee the management of the LNR.
There is a network of paths criss-crossing the Bryn. There are several public footpaths leading onto the Bryn but once on the hill they lose their practical importance, as the hill has open access and the public footpaths on the map often bear little resemblance to those on the ground. The Summit Trail is a circular promoted route which starts at the car park and links Llys Euryn mansion and the summit hillfort. The Bryn Euryn leaflet includes this trail and it is waymarked on the ground.
The Bryn is mainly used by local people and many of these are regular dog walkers. Some people local to Bryn Euryn have indicated that they have clear memories of sheep grazing the Bryn in the 1940s, however others have said they have no recollection of ever seeing any grazing on the hill. When Colwyn Borough Council leased the Bryn for a period of ten years from the 30th November 1924, the user covenant was to use it for grazing purposes and as a public pleasure ground. Although the Lease terms ceased to have any effect when the freehold was acquired in 1932, for whatever reason the user restrictions were not repeated in the freehold covenants. Certainly in more recent times it is only rabbits that have grazed the Bryn.


1.2 Background to SSSI management
In 1957, 56 acres were identified as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) by the Nature Conservancy Council (forerunner of CCW) under Section 23 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. This included most of the Council’s land holding, and both the woodland and grassland were included within the SSSI boundary.
In 1983 the site was re-notified as an SSSI under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, at which time a list of operations likely to cause damage to the special interest of the site was also issued to the Council as owners of the land. At this time the size of the SSSI was considerably reduced by excluding the woodland areas. The new SSSI is only 11.5 ha and is confined to the grasslands.
The purpose of scrub control and mowing is to maintain and restore the limestone grassland habitat. If natural succession was allowed to take place the site would turn into scrub/woodland with loss of open space. As the site is designated as a SSSI for its limestone grasslands then the Council has a duty to maintain that interest.
There was some limited scrub control near the summit by Clwyd Countryside Service in the early 1990s. In 1996 the site started to be actively managed by Conwy County Borough Council’s Countryside Service, following the scrub control areas indicated in the Countryside Council for Wales’ (CCW) management plan. In 1996 the upper meadow was covered in scattered trees and these were initially cut and treated by volunteers. The lower meadow had two large bramble patches and trees/scrub had encroached along the edges.
From 1997 to 2004, both meadows were mown and raked off. From 2005 onwards, when the Council entered a Section 15 agreement with CCW, the lower meadow has been mown and raked off in August/September. The upper meadow has been mown less frequently and in sections. Weedwiping of re-grown saplings has augmented the mowing. The scrub edge on both meadows has been pushed back in strips and mown the following summer.
Consideration is being given to mowing the lower meadow twice each summer to try and reduce the density of perennial rye grass.

1.3 Background to the feasibility exercise
The purpose of the feasibility exercise is to look at the viability of grazing as a potentially more sustainable option over the long-term than the current mowing and raking regime.
The concept of a feasibility study into grazing has been in the management plan since 2001 but was only specifically discussed by the MAG in April 2009. The MAG agreed that a feasibility study should be undertaken and re-confirmed this in July, after local opposition to the idea of grazing was expressed.
Mowing is an artificial replacement for grazing. The table below (from the Lowland Grassland Management Handbook) shows a comparison of grazing and mowing from a conservation perspective.



2 Feasibility Assessments
2.1 Legal Restrictions
There are two uncertainties in respect of the existing covenant: whether grazing would be deemed a business and whether the proposals would be deemed to significantly restrict the public’s recreational use of the area. If either of these applies then grazing is potentially precluded.
The benefit of the covenants on the Bryn are vested in the Cayley Estate. It is the Estate which could therefore enforce the covenants by holding the Council in breach of covenant.
The Cayley estate has been approached, as part of this exercise, to establish its initial view on these matters. Their response was:-
“if the proposed grazing is done for the stated purpose and no payment is received as a consideration for the same then this would not be a trade, business or profession. It would perhaps be an occupation but as the rights of public would have to be reserved in any licence to occupy then this would not be an exclusive occupation.

The wording of the Conveyance would also appear to be interesting in that it does not expressly state that the future use of the land is to be that of a public open space, since it is provided that the trade or business of a caterer, confectioner, provider of refreshments or tobacconist in any club room, pavilion, cafe or refreshment room as duly authorised by the Council would not be a breach of the relevant covenant affecting the land.

In essence, we do not believe that what is proposed by the Council as set out in your said e.mail would amount to a breach of the relevant terms of the said Conveyance, but if there is any divergence from such proposals then we would expect to be notified.”

Our Development Control section has advised that grazing is unlikely to require planning permission as agricultural use of land is exempt.


2.2 Livestock and Grazing Considerations
Due to the number of dogs on the site sheep are not thought suitable due to the potential for dogs worrying sheep. Cattle would graze similarly to ponies but are perceived by the public to be more dangerous. Tame ponies could be a problem if people are feeding them.
Semi-feral ponies, from the nearby Carneddau herds, would be suitable as they will move away from people and not beg for food or be near enough to be injured by anyone. They would be hardy and able to withstand the weather. They are small and attractive so are generally liked by the public.
These ponies are being used to good effect at Breakwater Country Park near Holyhead and on other sites on Anglesey, and nearer, at Maes y Fachell on the Orme.
Both the lower and upper meadows have an area of about 2.25 - 2.3 haeach (perimeter of each circa 700-710m). There is sufficient grazing for five ponies per enclosure. The ideal grazing regime, in terms of conservation management would require grazing of the paddocks for two months in spring and four months late summer early /autumn (to allow most of the flowers to set seed).
CCW’s priority is, initially, for the Upper Meadow to be grazed. CCW considers that the Lower Meadow needs mowing twice each summer for several years to reduce the density of the perennial rye grass, to bring it into condition for grazing. The crags are seen as a lower priority, mainly because the grassland there is less threatened by scrub invasion and manual control of re-invasion by non-native cotoneasters and evergreen oak is the priority. Three options are presented:-
Option 1: Fence out and graze the upper meadow only and continue to mow
the lower meadow.
Option 2: Fence out and graze the upper and lower meadows. No mowing.
Option 3: Fence both meadows and graze as one unit. No mowing.

See Appendix 3 for grazing options map.

2.3 Interest from potential graziers
Two graziers have been contacted who are potentially interested. One is involved with the Carneddau ponies. However, he has indicated that this may be conditional upon some financial input from the Council in respect of transportation of ponies.
The other has Welsh mountain ponies, which are used to people going through the field on a public footpath.
There are other people involved with the Carneddau ponies but the person we have contacted would be the main contact.
If cattle were to be considered we would need to search for local smallholders with such breeds as Dexters or Highland Cattle.

2.4 Fencing
High tensile line wire fencing is considered suitable for ponies. Three line wires would be supported by split chestnut posts or angle iron on rockier ground. Barbed wire at the top or bottom of the fence is not recommended in case of injury to the livestock and people.
Any fence line should avoid corners and ‘pinch points’ to minimise contact between the ponies and the public. Making one area rather than two enclosures would reduce the pinch points. Moving the fence back into the woodland and cutting escape lines in the scrub would allow more space for the animals to move away and find shelter when necessary, and would also reduce the visual impact of the fencing.
Fencing costs for each option are estimated as follows, and include for the provision of a handling / loading pen, field gates and kissing gates:
Option 1: £14, 200
Option 2: £27,045
Option 3: £22, 680


2.5 Public access
Bryn Euryn is well used and enjoyed by many local people and visitors. Many of the sites users are dog walkers. The heaviest use is on the bottom fields by the car park. The lower meadow is also quite heavily used, whilst others follow the access track or Summit Trail.
One of the bottom fields is to be turned into allotments so this will be lost to dog walkers, which then may put more pressure on the other areas of the Bryn from dog walkers.
There has been concern from a significant number of local people that the possible fencing of the upper/lower meadows would restrict their access even further in the locality.
In practice however access through the paddocks would be available at all times through the installation of kissing gates on all the main paths. Any grazing would be restricted to certain months of the year and there would be an associated need for people to keep their dogs under control at these times. Outside the paddocks, people would still be able to let their dogs run more freely but in a controlled manner, as fencing would not be dog-proof.
If Carneddau ponies were used they would tend to move away from people. In similar projects dog walkers have been trained as Lookers (to report problems) and training has been available to train dog owners how to control their dogs in the vicinity of livestock.


2.6 Water source
In order to encourage movement of the ponies through the area and to ensure adequate water, troughs will need to be situated in each paddock. If the area is managed as a whole two troughs would still be advisable. One of these could potentially be located on the house boundary and fed from the mains supply, the other could be supplied from a bowser. However, initial enquiries regarding the potential to bring mains water to the site have revealed that this is likely to be impractical. This reduces options to the use of bowsers, which would feed the troughs. The grazier would be required to ensure daily checking of the troughs (this could potentially be aided by Lookers – volunteers who check/report problems – see Appendix 2 for Lookers Action Plan).
Bowsers come as road or site models. The advantage of a road model is it can be towed to site, but the grazier may be able to trailer in a site model and a quad bike to top up the troughs on a weekly basis. Alternatively a container could be left on site with a (locked) tap and refilled as needed.
In practice, graziers use a variety of containers/tanks to carry water and a variety of troughs.

2.7 Access to land by grazier
Access would be via the track past Llys Euryn cottage. They would have a key to the gate.
See Appendix 3 for map showing details of access, holding pen and fencing.

2.8 Division of responsibilities between the grazier and Conwy CBC
Any grazier would be required to sign up to a formal tenancy agreement prior to any livestock being introduced to the site. In view of the infrastructure required at this site to make grazing possible and the associated costs of this, it would be necessary to secure an agreement with a suitable grazier prior to investing in the required infrastructure.
The tenancy agreement as a legal document would detail where the responsibilities lie in terms of the grazier and the local authority.
The local authority would have the responsibility for:
o drawing up the agreement (including cost), overseeing adherence to its terms and also in having the responsibility to terminate the agreement should the need arise.
o the maintenance of the kissing gates and provision of advisory signage.
Through the tenancy agreement the grazier would take responsibility for:
o All welfare issues relating to the livestock e.g. water supply, ragwort control, straying of livestock, veterinary care
o Maintenance of fencing and field gates, and general good condition of the holding
o Holding adequate public liability insurance
o Bringing livestock to and from the site for the required periods of grazing in the year
o Horse passports


2.9 Grazing animals as an attraction
The ponies may enhance people’s enjoyment of the Bryn and could be used as an example of conservation grazing to students. At Breakwater Country Park local people frequently stop to speak to the grazier and tell him that they like to see the ponies on the site. There have been very few adverse comments.

2.10 Carbon footprint
Grazing potentially has a lower carbon footprint than mowing but this is significantly affected by how much travelling the grazier has to do. The amount of petrol consumed by mowing this summer (mowing/raking of lower meadow and same for five metre wide strip along much of upper meadow) is 133 litres (this includes travel to site but not chemical used for weedwiping saplings). The petrol consumption for grazing depends on the number of site visits required by the grazier. In an ideal world the regular visitors to the Bryn would act as Lookers - people who check on the stock and report problems. This has worked with similar projects elsewhere and would reduce the frequency of the grazier’s visits.
Assuming the grazier travels 30 miles return, visits five days per month, for six months at 30 miles per gallon = 150 litres/year.
Assuming grazier visits daily, assuming 30 days per month = 900 litres/year.


3 Cost / Benefit analysis
The following table shows the approximate costs and break-even point for each option:

Option
Capital cost
Annual revenue cost
Break-even point (in relation to continuation of present regime)
Mechanical mowing, as at present
Nil
£3,000
-
Option 1 – grazing of upper meadow
£14,200
£2,500
28 years
Option 2 – separate grazing of upper and lower meadows
£27,045
£1,000
14 years
Option 3 – combined grazing of upper and lower meadows
£22,680
£1,000
11 years


4 Risk Assessment (See Appendix 1 for detail)
The main concerns arising from the risk assessment are:-
1. Access to secure water supply and the need to check regularly that water
is okay.
2. Removal/monitoring of poisonous plants – yew, bracken, ragwort.
3. Vandalism/sabotage: the likelihood of this is difficult to predict but is of
concern because of the distress it could potentially cause to the animals
and the potential cost/time of repairs.
4. Chasing stock by dogs.
5. Injury to the public from stock.



5 Summary of outstanding issues
Although there is some provisional interest from potential graziers (who are fully aware of all site issues and potential conditions), a grazier would still need to commit to signing a tenancy agreement.
There is uncertainty over levels of support from Lookers. In an ideal world this would help the grazier and reduce the number of his visits. In the first instance a grazier would have to assume that reliable local help with monitoring the livestock and associated infrastructure would not be forthcoming.
The level of vandalism e.g. tampering with fencing or water troughs or people/dogs chasing stock is an unknown quantity and would be of direct concern to the grazier.
Should the MAG wish to proceed with the grazing , capital funding has not been secured, although CCW have agreed a contribution of 50% to the cost of fencing.
Should the MAG wish to proceed with grazing then further consultation with the community will be required.