The simple answer is that we don't know. This project has been in the making for some considerable time. Carn Kenidjack required Scheduled Monument Consent – but unlike planning, this isn't publicised, nor is the public given any chance to object. Hell, the Local Planning Authority isn't even told about SAM applications (but I'll bet that the NT is fully informed). We don't even know if that has been granted or not but we do know that the application was lodged. Also, that the Secretary of State has the Nine Maidens site on his desk – he has to decide on that because it is Registered Common Land. Because those procedures are current, we have every reason to believe that time is now short. The only apparent hold-up appears to be the lack of publication of the historical assessments being prepared by "English" Heritage (Oh, there's nothing like local expertise, so they never consult any – so you can already guess just how thorough or correct those reports will be).

We are in the dark and we are being kept in the dark. That, of course, is deliberate.

edited by: marhak, Jul 06, 2008 – 09:04 PM

Egloshal said:

Would a National Park for Cornwall solve any issues? We could have Penwith Moors, the Lizard and Bodmin Moor all within one National Park for Cornwall.

But would it be an English National Park, or a Cornish National Park?

Just a thought…. IF some of the farmers had decided ON THEIR OWN to resume grazing parts of the moors, for commercial purposes (eg"Traditional Moorland Grazed Organic Beef) and did a bit of fencing, that would have been well within their rights would it not?
Would that still have been objectionable?

P_Trembath, your comment suggests you didn't read the various linked documents closely.

http://www.theheathproject.org.uk/content_pdf/en/Web_article_Nov_07.pdf

Years ago I had some involvement in disagreements over rights on various parcels of land in the area under discussion, and it can be a nightmare even for solicitors to sort out, with some land "jointly and severally owned by 'lords'"…its THAT sort of language, and usually gets worse……

Even the phrase "common land" is often wrongly used or misunderstood.

My point is, that IF the farmers WITH historical/inherited RIGHTS OVER THE LAND wanted to resume moorland grazing, (with the usual legal duty to prevent straying) and kept the actual rights of way open with riding gates, stiles, and cattle grids….would anyone be uspet?? …if so, would their annoyance be justified?

I should have made my post clearer. Graham.

Why would they want to do so, as additional production is not required (hence set-aside land, etc.)? The only reason that some farmers/landowners want to do it is that they will be getting easy money.

Other farmers/landowners oppose the scheme.