£140,000 cost of using sheep to mow grass in Brighton and Hove

Sheep grazing in Stanmer Park

Sheep grazing in Stanmer Park

First published in News by

They are considered a charming animal attraction by most.

But the sheep responsible for keeping the ancient downland and chalkland of Brighton and Hove trimmed have soared in cost.

A freedom of information request to Brighton and Hove City Council has revealed that the programme has cost more than £140,000 over the last two years.

The figures include £42,000 spent on hiring hundreds of sheep at 28p a day and £13,000 transporting sheep from one location to another.

The bill rose from £67,000 in 2011 to £71,000 in 2012.

Campaigners have raised concerns about the need to enclose the sheep which is closing off historic open spaces with fences and gates.

Signatures

The council spent more than £52,000 installing or repairing gates, fences and wiring including paying £5,000 last month to put up fencing in Wild Park.

In October The Argus reported how residents accused the council of “wanton destruction” of woodland after announcing plans to clear areas of Wild Park to make land for sheep to graze.

A petition against the proposals attracted more than 1,700 signatures.

The council has been using grazing animals as a more environmentally friendly way of keeping downland trimmed back since 2004 and started training volunteers to check on the sheep in 2007.

Volunteers

The council currently has more than 100 volunteers but is looking for up to 40 new people to manage the expansion of sheep onto more land.

It has cost the council £1,300 in the last two years to train volunteer shepherds or lookerers.

In total, council sheep graze 107 hectares at 12 different sites around the city.

David Alderton, the chair of the Preston Park and Fiveways Local Action Team, said: “When they replaced the mowing it was supposed to be a cost saving measure but I believe the mowing cost only used to be £30,000 so it’s not even a money saving project.

“You now have sheep where people have been used to walking dogs for years.

Surprising figure

“They don’t even own the sheep, they hire them from a shepherd at Sussex Wildlife Trust so at the end of the process he’s selling off the meat and getting the benefit.”

Brighton resident Sue Grimstone, who made the information request to the council, said she was surprised by the figure.

She said: “It does seem like an awful lot of money.

“I know they want to put some sheep in new areas and they want to fence a lot of open spaces with permanent fences.”

Talking point: To what extent is the environmental benefit of grazing sheep on Brighton and Hove's grassland outweighed by the financial cost? Or is it a price worth paying? Share your views by commenting below or email The Argus letters pages letters@theargus.co.uk.

See the latest news headlines from The Argus:

More news from The Argus

Follow @brightonargus

The Argus: Daily Echo on Facebook - facebook.com/southerndailyecho Like us on Facebook

The Argus: Google+ Add us to your circles on Google+

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:59pm Wed 23 Jan 13

rayellerton says...

idiots..they do this when 2/3 gardeners could be employed to tend parkland and verges with mowers...but that would be too simple and practical
idiots..they do this when 2/3 gardeners could be employed to tend parkland and verges with mowers...but that would be too simple and practical rayellerton
  • Score: 0

2:36pm Wed 23 Jan 13

pperrin says...

So one of their green buddies is pocketing all the cash from the public fattening up his sheep on public land.

'Corruption' anyone?
So one of their green buddies is pocketing all the cash from the public fattening up his sheep on public land. 'Corruption' anyone? pperrin
  • Score: 0

2:39pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Here we go again says...

It would be nice to get a complete breakdown of the costs, including the time the Countryside Rangers spend on their daily vists, The sheep are not tended to by volunteer lookers alone.

From the picture shown it would appear to be overstocked with sheep. Has anyone looked into Defra guideline for sheep per acre?
It would be nice to get a complete breakdown of the costs, including the time the Countryside Rangers spend on their daily vists, The sheep are not tended to by volunteer lookers alone. From the picture shown it would appear to be overstocked with sheep. Has anyone looked into Defra guideline for sheep per acre? Here we go again
  • Score: 0

3:06pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Brighton Pensioner says...

What the Argus did not report was that Council receives grant funding from the EU to help conserve ancient grassland, which is our equivalent of rain forests. Conservation grazing, which is what this is, helps to save an enormous variety of wildlife. And no, I am not a Green.
What the Argus did not report was that Council receives grant funding from the EU to help conserve ancient grassland, which is our equivalent of rain forests. Conservation grazing, which is what this is, helps to save an enormous variety of wildlife. And no, I am not a Green. Brighton Pensioner
  • Score: 1

3:39pm Wed 23 Jan 13

StyleCop says...

rayellerton wrote:
idiots..they do this when 2/3 gardeners could be employed to tend parkland and verges with mowers...but that would be too simple and practical
...you can't get simpler than a herd of sheep.

Consider the cost of mowers, moving them around from location to location, the cost of a flat bed truck, the fuel for all, the maintainance costs, the fixed overheads for storage etc - I'm sure it's equivalent when it's factored in.

The difference? - Sheep belong in the country - whereas trucks and mowers don't.

Have you ever considered the cost of those weird futuristic pavement sweepers you see guys piloting aroudn the streets? - how much do they cost to run, maintain, house and operate... especially compared to a broom and a shovel?
[quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: idiots..they do this when 2/3 gardeners could be employed to tend parkland and verges with mowers...but that would be too simple and practical[/p][/quote]...you can't get simpler than a herd of sheep. Consider the cost of mowers, moving them around from location to location, the cost of a flat bed truck, the fuel for all, the maintainance costs, the fixed overheads for storage etc - I'm sure it's equivalent when it's factored in. The difference? - Sheep belong in the country - whereas trucks and mowers don't. Have you ever considered the cost of those weird futuristic pavement sweepers you see guys piloting aroudn the streets? - how much do they cost to run, maintain, house and operate... especially compared to a broom and a shovel? StyleCop
  • Score: 0

3:53pm Wed 23 Jan 13

NickBtn says...

It's great that a freedom of information request has been made that shows this waste of money. Worrying that the council committees haven't spotted this and stopped the project. Clearly the costs have spiralled and the benefits have not. Indeed it's closing off areas that people want to use

So lets save money and improve access by abandoning this as soon as possible. This method seems to be costing double the mowing costs. 40K a year to be saved here.....
It's great that a freedom of information request has been made that shows this waste of money. Worrying that the council committees haven't spotted this and stopped the project. Clearly the costs have spiralled and the benefits have not. Indeed it's closing off areas that people want to use So lets save money and improve access by abandoning this as soon as possible. This method seems to be costing double the mowing costs. 40K a year to be saved here..... NickBtn
  • Score: 0

4:02pm Wed 23 Jan 13

nosolution says...

On a lot of these sites like at Coldean all the sheep have done over the past 3 years is turn rough grass into shorter rough grass with none of the acclaimed chalk grassland species of flora and fauna making a comeback.On some sites it works but on most it doesn't and never will and at the heavy cost of public exclusion from public land for several months in the year...
On a lot of these sites like at Coldean all the sheep have done over the past 3 years is turn rough grass into shorter rough grass with none of the acclaimed chalk grassland species of flora and fauna making a comeback.On some sites it works but on most it doesn't and never will and at the heavy cost of public exclusion from public land for several months in the year... nosolution
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Wed 23 Jan 13

fredflintstone1 says...

Brighton Pensioner wrote:
What the Argus did not report was that Council receives grant funding from the EU to help conserve ancient grassland, which is our equivalent of rain forests. Conservation grazing, which is what this is, helps to save an enormous variety of wildlife. And no, I am not a Green.
Nice little earner, isn’t it? People even look after the shepherd’s flocks for free!!

Hundreds of oaks, ash and other trees are being felled in our parks and fences put in place, transforming the landscape. Is this because the recently-arrived Londonistans expect a view of the rural idyll here without having to venture out on to the Downs as such?

Sorry, but Wild Park is not ancient grassland - any more than is the site by Asda at Hollingbury where these sheep are also grazed. This unnecessary, unwanted work is being paid for by taxpayers (not the EU - although that is funded by us too), and it is destroying established species.

The Downs originally were covered by forests, until the trees were cut down - so if you want to conserve a natural landscape, let areas that have reverted to woodland on the urban fringe, out of the grasp of greedy shepherds, remain as woodland and manage them on this basis.

Everywhere we’re told that there’s no money to help the old, young and vulnerable, but the Greens still pursue their vanity projects - totally regardless of logic, cost or public opinion.
[quote][p][bold]Brighton Pensioner[/bold] wrote: What the Argus did not report was that Council receives grant funding from the EU to help conserve ancient grassland, which is our equivalent of rain forests. Conservation grazing, which is what this is, helps to save an enormous variety of wildlife. And no, I am not a Green.[/p][/quote]Nice little earner, isn’t it? People even look after the shepherd’s flocks for free!! Hundreds of oaks, ash and other trees are being felled in our parks and fences put in place, transforming the landscape. Is this because the recently-arrived Londonistans expect a view of the rural idyll here without having to venture out on to the Downs as such? Sorry, but Wild Park is not ancient grassland - any more than is the site by Asda at Hollingbury where these sheep are also grazed. This unnecessary, unwanted work is being paid for by taxpayers (not the EU - although that is funded by us too), and it is destroying established species. The Downs originally were covered by forests, until the trees were cut down - so if you want to conserve a natural landscape, let areas that have reverted to woodland on the urban fringe, out of the grasp of greedy shepherds, remain as woodland and manage them on this basis. Everywhere we’re told that there’s no money to help the old, young and vulnerable, but the Greens still pursue their vanity projects - totally regardless of logic, cost or public opinion. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 0

4:18pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Rostrum says...

What a wizard-wheeze for the owner of the flock. No need to rent pasture land. Actually get paid to graze your sheep.. No doubt there an EU farm subsidy or two to claim as well.
What a wizard-wheeze for the owner of the flock. No need to rent pasture land. Actually get paid to graze your sheep.. No doubt there an EU farm subsidy or two to claim as well. Rostrum
  • Score: 0

4:23pm Wed 23 Jan 13

David Hirst says...

The land being restored and conserved by the grazing, although called grassland, is a rich reserve of wild flowers and plants, along with insects, like butterflies, that feed on them. It is much more than just grass. These communities have evolved over the thousands of years that the downs have been grazed, and we would all suffer from their loss. Both because we would lose the beauty of them, and because the resilience this variety and biodiversity of life provides us would make us all more vulnerable. Much of this “flowerland” has survived decades of neglect because it is on steep slopes, which cannot be cut by machine, and we owe a lot to the rabbits for the bits they have preserved.
Despite the draconian and unnecessary cuts imposed by one of the most unkind and anti-green governments ever known, Brighton & Hove is preserving support for the old, the young and the vulnerable. They are not put at risk by the grazing.
The land being restored and conserved by the grazing, although called grassland, is a rich reserve of wild flowers and plants, along with insects, like butterflies, that feed on them. It is much more than just grass. These communities have evolved over the thousands of years that the downs have been grazed, and we would all suffer from their loss. Both because we would lose the beauty of them, and because the resilience this variety and biodiversity of life provides us would make us all more vulnerable. Much of this “flowerland” has survived decades of neglect because it is on steep slopes, which cannot be cut by machine, and we owe a lot to the rabbits for the bits they have preserved. Despite the draconian and unnecessary cuts imposed by one of the most unkind and anti-green governments ever known, Brighton & Hove is preserving support for the old, the young and the vulnerable. They are not put at risk by the grazing. David Hirst
  • Score: 1

4:25pm Wed 23 Jan 13

brightonbatfink says...

As with every news article its wise to take a step back and look at what you're being told...and what you're not.

There are no comments from the council here, I would assume they were not asked to comment or were not given time to (otherwise we'd have the usual 'XXX declined to comment'). So its interesting the Argus decided to run this article without any input from the council. Therefore, it is impossible to understand exactly where the money have come from (grants etc) and exactly how the money is spent. Initial costs of projects is always higher in the first few years than it is predicted to be in the future.

In terms of conservation, woodland is not a threatened habitat. Chalk grassland is. Have a poke around on the internet and you'll see this habitat is extremely limited worldwide and this project has a valuable aim. Don't expect results within the first year, it isn't that simple!

I very very much doubt that the farmers are making more than a very very low profit on this!! I don't claim to know the ins and outs of farming, but believe me this isn't a money earner!!
As with every news article its wise to take a step back and look at what you're being told...and what you're not. There are no comments from the council here, I would assume they were not asked to comment or were not given time to (otherwise we'd have the usual 'XXX declined to comment'). So its interesting the Argus decided to run this article without any input from the council. Therefore, it is impossible to understand exactly where the money have come from (grants etc) and exactly how the money is spent. Initial costs of projects is always higher in the first few years than it is predicted to be in the future. In terms of conservation, woodland is not a threatened habitat. Chalk grassland is. Have a poke around on the internet and you'll see this habitat is extremely limited worldwide and this project has a valuable aim. Don't expect results within the first year, it isn't that simple! I very very much doubt that the farmers are making more than a very very low profit on this!! I don't claim to know the ins and outs of farming, but believe me this isn't a money earner!! brightonbatfink
  • Score: 0

4:44pm Wed 23 Jan 13

rolivan says...

StyleCop wrote:
rayellerton wrote:
idiots..they do this when 2/3 gardeners could be employed to tend parkland and verges with mowers...but that would be too simple and practical
...you can't get simpler than a herd of sheep.

Consider the cost of mowers, moving them around from location to location, the cost of a flat bed truck, the fuel for all, the maintainance costs, the fixed overheads for storage etc - I'm sure it's equivalent when it's factored in.

The difference? - Sheep belong in the country - whereas trucks and mowers don't.

Have you ever considered the cost of those weird futuristic pavement sweepers you see guys piloting aroudn the streets? - how much do they cost to run, maintain, house and operate... especially compared to a broom and a shovel?
well I know a chewing gum removal machine cost £120.000 and needs 2 people a trailer and vehicle and needed modifying at the councils expense because the company the council purchased it from went into liquidation so dont expect anything else
[quote][p][bold]StyleCop[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: idiots..they do this when 2/3 gardeners could be employed to tend parkland and verges with mowers...but that would be too simple and practical[/p][/quote]...you can't get simpler than a herd of sheep. Consider the cost of mowers, moving them around from location to location, the cost of a flat bed truck, the fuel for all, the maintainance costs, the fixed overheads for storage etc - I'm sure it's equivalent when it's factored in. The difference? - Sheep belong in the country - whereas trucks and mowers don't. Have you ever considered the cost of those weird futuristic pavement sweepers you see guys piloting aroudn the streets? - how much do they cost to run, maintain, house and operate... especially compared to a broom and a shovel?[/p][/quote]well I know a chewing gum removal machine cost £120.000 and needs 2 people a trailer and vehicle and needed modifying at the councils expense because the company the council purchased it from went into liquidation so dont expect anything else rolivan
  • Score: 0

4:59pm Wed 23 Jan 13

george smith says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
Brighton Pensioner wrote:
What the Argus did not report was that Council receives grant funding from the EU to help conserve ancient grassland, which is our equivalent of rain forests. Conservation grazing, which is what this is, helps to save an enormous variety of wildlife. And no, I am not a Green.
Nice little earner, isn’t it? People even look after the shepherd’s flocks for free!!

Hundreds of oaks, ash and other trees are being felled in our parks and fences put in place, transforming the landscape. Is this because the recently-arrived Londonistans expect a view of the rural idyll here without having to venture out on to the Downs as such?

Sorry, but Wild Park is not ancient grassland - any more than is the site by Asda at Hollingbury where these sheep are also grazed. This unnecessary, unwanted work is being paid for by taxpayers (not the EU - although that is funded by us too), and it is destroying established species.

The Downs originally were covered by forests, until the trees were cut down - so if you want to conserve a natural landscape, let areas that have reverted to woodland on the urban fringe, out of the grasp of greedy shepherds, remain as woodland and manage them on this basis.

Everywhere we’re told that there’s no money to help the old, young and vulnerable, but the Greens still pursue their vanity projects - totally regardless of logic, cost or public opinion.
I heard that who thought the idea up were big on egos but short on qualifications in this field, and that it had always been to steep for sheep and it had been used for rabbit farming, when rabbit had beenin the weekly diet
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton Pensioner[/bold] wrote: What the Argus did not report was that Council receives grant funding from the EU to help conserve ancient grassland, which is our equivalent of rain forests. Conservation grazing, which is what this is, helps to save an enormous variety of wildlife. And no, I am not a Green.[/p][/quote]Nice little earner, isn’t it? People even look after the shepherd’s flocks for free!! Hundreds of oaks, ash and other trees are being felled in our parks and fences put in place, transforming the landscape. Is this because the recently-arrived Londonistans expect a view of the rural idyll here without having to venture out on to the Downs as such? Sorry, but Wild Park is not ancient grassland - any more than is the site by Asda at Hollingbury where these sheep are also grazed. This unnecessary, unwanted work is being paid for by taxpayers (not the EU - although that is funded by us too), and it is destroying established species. The Downs originally were covered by forests, until the trees were cut down - so if you want to conserve a natural landscape, let areas that have reverted to woodland on the urban fringe, out of the grasp of greedy shepherds, remain as woodland and manage them on this basis. Everywhere we’re told that there’s no money to help the old, young and vulnerable, but the Greens still pursue their vanity projects - totally regardless of logic, cost or public opinion.[/p][/quote]I heard that who thought the idea up were big on egos but short on qualifications in this field, and that it had always been to steep for sheep and it had been used for rabbit farming, when rabbit had beenin the weekly diet george smith
  • Score: 0

5:00pm Wed 23 Jan 13

george smith says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
Brighton Pensioner wrote:
What the Argus did not report was that Council receives grant funding from the EU to help conserve ancient grassland, which is our equivalent of rain forests. Conservation grazing, which is what this is, helps to save an enormous variety of wildlife. And no, I am not a Green.
Nice little earner, isn’t it? People even look after the shepherd’s flocks for free!!

Hundreds of oaks, ash and other trees are being felled in our parks and fences put in place, transforming the landscape. Is this because the recently-arrived Londonistans expect a view of the rural idyll here without having to venture out on to the Downs as such?

Sorry, but Wild Park is not ancient grassland - any more than is the site by Asda at Hollingbury where these sheep are also grazed. This unnecessary, unwanted work is being paid for by taxpayers (not the EU - although that is funded by us too), and it is destroying established species.

The Downs originally were covered by forests, until the trees were cut down - so if you want to conserve a natural landscape, let areas that have reverted to woodland on the urban fringe, out of the grasp of greedy shepherds, remain as woodland and manage them on this basis.

Everywhere we’re told that there’s no money to help the old, young and vulnerable, but the Greens still pursue their vanity projects - totally regardless of logic, cost or public opinion.
I heard that who thought the idea up were big on egos but short on qualifications in this field, and that it had always been to steep for sheep and it had been used for rabbit farming, when rabbit had beenin the weekly diet
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton Pensioner[/bold] wrote: What the Argus did not report was that Council receives grant funding from the EU to help conserve ancient grassland, which is our equivalent of rain forests. Conservation grazing, which is what this is, helps to save an enormous variety of wildlife. And no, I am not a Green.[/p][/quote]Nice little earner, isn’t it? People even look after the shepherd’s flocks for free!! Hundreds of oaks, ash and other trees are being felled in our parks and fences put in place, transforming the landscape. Is this because the recently-arrived Londonistans expect a view of the rural idyll here without having to venture out on to the Downs as such? Sorry, but Wild Park is not ancient grassland - any more than is the site by Asda at Hollingbury where these sheep are also grazed. This unnecessary, unwanted work is being paid for by taxpayers (not the EU - although that is funded by us too), and it is destroying established species. The Downs originally were covered by forests, until the trees were cut down - so if you want to conserve a natural landscape, let areas that have reverted to woodland on the urban fringe, out of the grasp of greedy shepherds, remain as woodland and manage them on this basis. Everywhere we’re told that there’s no money to help the old, young and vulnerable, but the Greens still pursue their vanity projects - totally regardless of logic, cost or public opinion.[/p][/quote]I heard that who thought the idea up were big on egos but short on qualifications in this field, and that it had always been to steep for sheep and it had been used for rabbit farming, when rabbit had beenin the weekly diet george smith
  • Score: 0

5:12pm Wed 23 Jan 13

fredflintstone1 says...

David Hirst wrote:
The land being restored and conserved by the grazing, although called grassland, is a rich reserve of wild flowers and plants, along with insects, like butterflies, that feed on them. It is much more than just grass. These communities have evolved over the thousands of years that the downs have been grazed, and we would all suffer from their loss. Both because we would lose the beauty of them, and because the resilience this variety and biodiversity of life provides us would make us all more vulnerable. Much of this “flowerland” has survived decades of neglect because it is on steep slopes, which cannot be cut by machine, and we owe a lot to the rabbits for the bits they have preserved.
Despite the draconian and unnecessary cuts imposed by one of the most unkind and anti-green governments ever known, Brighton & Hove is preserving support for the old, the young and the vulnerable. They are not put at risk by the grazing.
Sorry, but they are being put at risk ... If you go to a farm park as I did recently with my young daughter, there are hygiene precautions in terms of hand gels, notices etc., but in Stanmer Park for example, children could be playing on land that has been heavily contaminated with E.coli, Salmonella etc..

The sheep are even wandering on school playing fields at times. The Council has a duty to protect public health, but it's failing to do so.

DEFRA stats reveal that just a single sheep will produce the equivalent of 2750 tablespoons of droppings scattered over its enclosure every month.

So how about volunteers to clear up sheep poop in our public parks? Don't forget to take your own picnic spoons next time you visit one of these wonderful 'natural' areas with your family, and perform a valuable public service before you sit down and enjoy yourselves!
[quote][p][bold]David Hirst[/bold] wrote: The land being restored and conserved by the grazing, although called grassland, is a rich reserve of wild flowers and plants, along with insects, like butterflies, that feed on them. It is much more than just grass. These communities have evolved over the thousands of years that the downs have been grazed, and we would all suffer from their loss. Both because we would lose the beauty of them, and because the resilience this variety and biodiversity of life provides us would make us all more vulnerable. Much of this “flowerland” has survived decades of neglect because it is on steep slopes, which cannot be cut by machine, and we owe a lot to the rabbits for the bits they have preserved. Despite the draconian and unnecessary cuts imposed by one of the most unkind and anti-green governments ever known, Brighton & Hove is preserving support for the old, the young and the vulnerable. They are not put at risk by the grazing.[/p][/quote]Sorry, but they are being put at risk ... If you go to a farm park as I did recently with my young daughter, there are hygiene precautions in terms of hand gels, notices etc., but in Stanmer Park for example, children could be playing on land that has been heavily contaminated with E.coli, Salmonella etc.. The sheep are even wandering on school playing fields at times. The Council has a duty to protect public health, but it's failing to do so. DEFRA stats reveal that just a single sheep will produce the equivalent of 2750 tablespoons of droppings scattered over its enclosure every month. So how about volunteers to clear up sheep poop in our public parks? Don't forget to take your own picnic spoons next time you visit one of these wonderful 'natural' areas with your family, and perform a valuable public service before you sit down and enjoy yourselves! fredflintstone1
  • Score: 0

5:50pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Fight_Back says...

Brighton Pensioner wrote:
What the Argus did not report was that Council receives grant funding from the EU to help conserve ancient grassland, which is our equivalent of rain forests. Conservation grazing, which is what this is, helps to save an enormous variety of wildlife. And no, I am not a Green.
Where exactly do you think EU money comes from ? Ah yes - OUR pockets AGAIN !
[quote][p][bold]Brighton Pensioner[/bold] wrote: What the Argus did not report was that Council receives grant funding from the EU to help conserve ancient grassland, which is our equivalent of rain forests. Conservation grazing, which is what this is, helps to save an enormous variety of wildlife. And no, I am not a Green.[/p][/quote]Where exactly do you think EU money comes from ? Ah yes - OUR pockets AGAIN ! Fight_Back
  • Score: 0

6:29pm Wed 23 Jan 13

farang says...

Another contentious issue to add to cyclists, cycle lanes, students, 'greenies', 'incomers' (or Londonista's), bus drivers, kids playing outside yer 'ouse, and so on and on and others that the xenophobic, anti-anything crackpots can have a rant at.
Another contentious issue to add to cyclists, cycle lanes, students, 'greenies', 'incomers' (or Londonista's), bus drivers, kids playing outside yer 'ouse, and so on and on and others that the xenophobic, anti-anything crackpots can have a rant at. farang
  • Score: 0

7:01pm Wed 23 Jan 13

dancingloony says...

rayellerton wrote:
idiots..they do this when 2/3 gardeners could be employed to tend parkland and verges with mowers...but that would be too simple and practical
The sheep graze the land slowly allowing wild plants to grow which intern is amazing for wild life this is all
Part on conservation and a helps with bio diversity
[quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: idiots..they do this when 2/3 gardeners could be employed to tend parkland and verges with mowers...but that would be too simple and practical[/p][/quote]The sheep graze the land slowly allowing wild plants to grow which intern is amazing for wild life this is all Part on conservation and a helps with bio diversity dancingloony
  • Score: 1

7:06pm Wed 23 Jan 13

dancingloony says...

rayellerton wrote:
idiots..they do this when 2/3 gardeners could be employed to tend parkland and verges with mowers...but that would be too simple and practical
The sheep graze the land slowly allowing wild plants to grow which intern is amazing for wild life this is all
Part on conservation and a helps with bio diversity
[quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: idiots..they do this when 2/3 gardeners could be employed to tend parkland and verges with mowers...but that would be too simple and practical[/p][/quote]The sheep graze the land slowly allowing wild plants to grow which intern is amazing for wild life this is all Part on conservation and a helps with bio diversity dancingloony
  • Score: 0

7:14pm Wed 23 Jan 13

dancingloony says...

ban you stupid annoying dogs that poo all over the park lol .. money money money is all it is ....The sheep graze the land slowly allowing wild plants to grow which intern is amazing for wild life this is all
Part on conservation and a helps with bio diversity. your dogs kill everything you people moan all the time get a life .. how do dogs kill everything ??? well there poo and ****
ban you stupid annoying dogs that poo all over the park lol .. money money money is all it is ....The sheep graze the land slowly allowing wild plants to grow which intern is amazing for wild life this is all Part on conservation and a helps with bio diversity. your dogs kill everything you people moan all the time get a life .. how do dogs kill everything ??? well there poo and **** dancingloony
  • Score: 0

7:37pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Dealing with idiots says...

Will we get to eat them once the experiment is over? Yum!
Will we get to eat them once the experiment is over? Yum! Dealing with idiots
  • Score: 0

7:43pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Sussex jim says...

Why is there a hefty cost for transporting the sheep? They could be driven along the public roads themselves, controlled by a few shepherds. This would also help the council's ambition to bring maximum disruption to motor traffic.
Why is there a hefty cost for transporting the sheep? They could be driven along the public roads themselves, controlled by a few shepherds. This would also help the council's ambition to bring maximum disruption to motor traffic. Sussex jim
  • Score: 0

8:12pm Wed 23 Jan 13

farang says...

Sussex jim wrote:
Why is there a hefty cost for transporting the sheep? They could be driven along the public roads themselves, controlled by a few shepherds. This would also help the council's ambition to bring maximum disruption to motor traffic.
Most of the ancient sheep droves are now bridlepaths so it could work very well and would not need to cause disruption to all the obese, fat gobbling, fag smoking haters driving half a mile to the pub!
[quote][p][bold]Sussex jim[/bold] wrote: Why is there a hefty cost for transporting the sheep? They could be driven along the public roads themselves, controlled by a few shepherds. This would also help the council's ambition to bring maximum disruption to motor traffic.[/p][/quote]Most of the ancient sheep droves are now bridlepaths so it could work very well and would not need to cause disruption to all the obese, fat gobbling, fag smoking haters driving half a mile to the pub! farang
  • Score: 0

8:34pm Wed 23 Jan 13

aabton says...

What an irresponsible article to publish. You clearly didn’t give the Council time to respond to your story because you’re missing a lot of the facts. There are of course start up costs associated with this project but long term this will be a cheaper option. I believe over the life of the project it will be £28k cheaper per annum. I guess that doesn’t make a good story.
Having read the FOI release it clearly states some costs relate to other general maintenance. Shame you don’t mention that in your article.
Get your facts together before you turn Argus readers against an environmentally friendly project which most people think is a great idea and costs us less.
What an irresponsible article to publish. You clearly didn’t give the Council time to respond to your story because you’re missing a lot of the facts. There are of course start up costs associated with this project but long term this will be a cheaper option. I believe over the life of the project it will be £28k cheaper per annum. I guess that doesn’t make a good story. Having read the FOI release it clearly states some costs relate to other general maintenance. Shame you don’t mention that in your article. Get your facts together before you turn Argus readers against an environmentally friendly project which most people think is a great idea and costs us less. aabton
  • Score: 0

9:10pm Wed 23 Jan 13

george smith says...

aabton wrote:
What an irresponsible article to publish. You clearly didn’t give the Council time to respond to your story because you’re missing a lot of the facts. There are of course start up costs associated with this project but long term this will be a cheaper option. I believe over the life of the project it will be £28k cheaper per annum. I guess that doesn’t make a good story.
Having read the FOI release it clearly states some costs relate to other general maintenance. Shame you don’t mention that in your article.
Get your facts together before you turn Argus readers against an environmentally friendly project which most people think is a great idea and costs us less.
Are you delusional or a green councillor? Where is your evidence that most people support this huge waste of money when the article says over 1770 people signed a petition opposing it?

Ironic that a green council that tried to force its refuse collection workers to accept meat-free Mondays has been shown to have spent more than £140,000 on keeping sheep for meat and now wants to cut the wages of these and other public sector workers. You & your fellow green toadies should crawl back under your stones.
[quote][p][bold]aabton[/bold] wrote: What an irresponsible article to publish. You clearly didn’t give the Council time to respond to your story because you’re missing a lot of the facts. There are of course start up costs associated with this project but long term this will be a cheaper option. I believe over the life of the project it will be £28k cheaper per annum. I guess that doesn’t make a good story. Having read the FOI release it clearly states some costs relate to other general maintenance. Shame you don’t mention that in your article. Get your facts together before you turn Argus readers against an environmentally friendly project which most people think is a great idea and costs us less.[/p][/quote]Are you delusional or a green councillor? Where is your evidence that most people support this huge waste of money when the article says over 1770 people signed a petition opposing it? Ironic that a green council that tried to force its refuse collection workers to accept meat-free Mondays has been shown to have spent more than £140,000 on keeping sheep for meat and now wants to cut the wages of these and other public sector workers. You & your fellow green toadies should crawl back under your stones. george smith
  • Score: 0

9:12pm Wed 23 Jan 13

Maxwell's Ghost says...

You missed the opportunity of a cracking headlline here Argus...Jason and the Golden Fleece.
Cllr Jason Kitkat heads a council which ignores almost every community and every group in the city asking for help, to continue with his ego boosting vanity projects which include digging up a cycle lane on the lewes road and replacing it with a cycle lane and hiring a flock of sheep.
For flocks sake.
I honestly don't know how they can sleep at night, but I suppose all dictoators have egos so large they lose their hearing.
You missed the opportunity of a cracking headlline here Argus...Jason and the Golden Fleece. Cllr Jason Kitkat heads a council which ignores almost every community and every group in the city asking for help, to continue with his ego boosting vanity projects which include digging up a cycle lane on the lewes road and replacing it with a cycle lane and hiring a flock of sheep. For flocks sake. I honestly don't know how they can sleep at night, but I suppose all dictoators have egos so large they lose their hearing. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 0

10:31am Thu 24 Jan 13

fredflintstone1 says...

aabton wrote:
What an irresponsible article to publish. You clearly didn’t give the Council time to respond to your story because you’re missing a lot of the facts. There are of course start up costs associated with this project but long term this will be a cheaper option. I believe over the life of the project it will be £28k cheaper per annum. I guess that doesn’t make a good story.
Having read the FOI release it clearly states some costs relate to other general maintenance. Shame you don’t mention that in your article.
Get your facts together before you turn Argus readers against an environmentally friendly project which most people think is a great idea and costs us less.
So perhaps you'd like to discuss the £350 paid to take five sheep to participate in a sheep-shearing demonstration at Dorothy Stringer? If the farmer or Sussex Wildlife Trust want to do that, then they or the school should pay. Simple. This was a blatant and totally unjustifiable misuse of public money.

This whole business is nothing more than a full scale farming exercise, being carried out at the taxpayers' expense.

Thanks to the Argus, the truth of this scandal is now starting to emerge. Hopefully, they will dig deeper into the story now as you suggest, and I look forward to reading their investigation.
[quote][p][bold]aabton[/bold] wrote: What an irresponsible article to publish. You clearly didn’t give the Council time to respond to your story because you’re missing a lot of the facts. There are of course start up costs associated with this project but long term this will be a cheaper option. I believe over the life of the project it will be £28k cheaper per annum. I guess that doesn’t make a good story. Having read the FOI release it clearly states some costs relate to other general maintenance. Shame you don’t mention that in your article. Get your facts together before you turn Argus readers against an environmentally friendly project which most people think is a great idea and costs us less.[/p][/quote]So perhaps you'd like to discuss the £350 paid to take five sheep to participate in a sheep-shearing demonstration at Dorothy Stringer? If the farmer or Sussex Wildlife Trust want to do that, then they or the school should pay. Simple. This was a blatant and totally unjustifiable misuse of public money. This whole business is nothing more than a full scale farming exercise, being carried out at the taxpayers' expense. Thanks to the Argus, the truth of this scandal is now starting to emerge. Hopefully, they will dig deeper into the story now as you suggest, and I look forward to reading their investigation. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 0

11:10am Thu 24 Jan 13

redwing says...

Brighton Pensioner wrote:
What the Argus did not report was that Council receives grant funding from the EU to help conserve ancient grassland, which is our equivalent of rain forests. Conservation grazing, which is what this is, helps to save an enormous variety of wildlife. And no, I am not a Green.
Oh dear.
A touch of sanity in the Argus comments.
Whatever next?
[quote][p][bold]Brighton Pensioner[/bold] wrote: What the Argus did not report was that Council receives grant funding from the EU to help conserve ancient grassland, which is our equivalent of rain forests. Conservation grazing, which is what this is, helps to save an enormous variety of wildlife. And no, I am not a Green.[/p][/quote]Oh dear. A touch of sanity in the Argus comments. Whatever next? redwing
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree