Petition: to immediately halt all works associated with the permanent Fencing off of our Local Nature Reserve and Open Access Amenity Space at Beacon Hill – Rottingdean. 
Pending full local consultations, formal risk assessment and time for legal review and challenge.  

The principal risks and impacts of permanent fencing in of Beacon Hill Local Nature Reserve together with the introduction of free roaming unattended and unsupervised sheep within a large area of public access land, have not been openly assessed or discussed with local residents. 

1. Risk and Impacts to ordinary pedestrian walkers of permanent enclosure fencing and free roaming unattended sheep.  Beacon Hill is not some remote moors National Park location, that can easily be fenced off with minimal public impact.  Beacon Hill is a very popular and necessary Local Open Access Space and access and amenity have a high status in the communities of Rottingdean and Ovingdean. 
   The main path crossings between Rottingdean and Ovingdean are used as a short cut between local communities, for school, work and shopping access, exercise, recreation and wellbeing. The routes between our villages are regularly and necessarily used by the elderly, school children as well as adults.   

a)       Denying existing access to anyone afraid of sheep 
When the area is permanently fenced in there will be no route around the sheep enclosures, as opposed to date, where temporary electric fences are raised, that don’t cover the whole Beacon Hill Reserve and leave routes around the temporary enclosures.
Complete and permanent external fences, together with free roaming sheep, will effectively exclude any person who is too afraid to enter the Beacon Hill reserve (especially children and the elderly) where sheep are free roaming and will inevitably come into close contact with the public. 
This is a dramatic change from the current and safe amenity to cross Beacon Hill, even when smaller temporary electric fence enclosures are erected. In future there will be no safe routs around sheep.  

b)       Risk of injury from sheep 
When sheep are present there will be no real alternative to go around the enclosure. Sheep will be unattended and unsupervised, with no farmer close by. 
Whilst Sheep are generally docile and not dangerous to humans, but intact males (rams) and panicked flocks can cause serious injuries. Again, the routes across Beacon Hill are used by the elderly, unattended school children who will be at greater risk and worry with unattended sheep nearby. 

c)       Increased risk of Trip/falls: 
from fencing, gates, livestock infrastructure and livestock churned and muddy ground. There will be less usable paths and this will increase wear and rutting.

d)       Temporary gates/and permanent fencing across established routes, potentially affecting convenient access even where a formal right of way exists. 

e)       Potentially greater difficulty for older or mobility-impaired walkers, particularly if normal routes are diverted or narrowed or have heavy gates. 

Have these risks and impacts to right of access and establish open access rights been assessed, and impacts considered and explained to local residents and parents. 

2.     Risk to dog walkers and their dogs from forcing them to use same spaces as sheep.  

Previously it was always an option for dog walkers to take their dogs around temporary electric fenced areas with sheep, as the areas never covered the whole Nature Reserve. This safety option is to be removed by the proposal to permanently fence off Beacon Hill and allow free roaming unattended and unsupervised sheep flocks on the public amenity space. 

Forcing dogs and sheep in the same space will become an issue. 
Even normally placid dogs can chase or worry sheep, while sheep can also react aggressively to dogs, particularly where lambs are present. The council proposes notices explaining the law concerning dogs when livestock is present. For walkers, this can create:

a)      A Risk of injury from sheep, particularly if a dog is present. 

b)      Risk of a dog attacking/chasing sheep, potentially resulting in injury to the dog and liability for its owner. 

c)      Reduced ability to exercise dogs off-lead, which appears to be a significant change from the historic and current recreational use and amenity of Beacon Hill. This may force dog-walkers to use adjacent recreational land to exercise dogs bringing conflict between dog walkers are recreation users. 

3. Health Hazard.  From seep contact and sheep droppings 
— there is a reasonable concern
a)      Human Health Hazard: Zoonotic diseases: 
Sheep can pass infections to humans. These include skin sores like Orf or bacterial infections from birth fluids. Have these risks been assessed, what information will be provided to local residents and parents. 

b)      Health Hazard from sheep droppings
Sheep faeces can contain organisms capable of causing illness, and contaminated ground can potentially present a hygiene risk to people and animals. Has the council assessed risks from dogs eating sheep faeces or contaminated vegetation?

What formal public-health or veterinary risk assessment has been undertaken concerning sheep faeces, particularly in areas heavily used by children and dog walkers?

4. Beacon Hill is designated as Open Access Land and has been a Local Nature Reserve since 2004 and is owned and managed by Brighton & Hove City Council. 

Its stated conservation objectives include chalk grassland, skylarks, wildflowers and associated insects. The council's published conservation-grazing policy says grazing is intended to prevent scrub, nettles and brambles taking over and to maintain chalk grassland. The Beacon Hill management material specifically says that historic sheep grazing helped create the chalk-grassland habitat. 

Resent extended sheep grazing appears to have been ineffective at reducing and eradicating the spread of brambles across Beacon Hill.

What evidence demonstrates that the proposed intensity, duration and location of grazing will improve rather than adversely affect the specific botanical communities and protected/important species currently present at Beacon Hill?

5. Walkers have stronger rights where there is a public right of way

The council cannot simply treat all routes through the reserve as though they were informal paths. The Parish Council's own information records three public bridleways crossing Beacon Hill, as well as regularly used footpaths. The council has also acknowledged that new footpaths have appeared and that existing footpaths have been extended or widened by local pedestrian traffic. 

If a route is a public right of way, the council cannot simply close it because it has introduced grazing. There can be lawful temporary restrictions in particular circumstances, but the legal requirements are different from simply putting a gate across a path because sheep are present.

We request Council supplies the definitive map and identify every registered footpath and bridleway affected by the proposed fencing/gates.

6. CROW open-access rights are another important protection

Beacon Hill is described by the council as being substantially open-access land. Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, qualifying open-access land normally carries a public right to access it on foot. Natural England's current guidance confirms that people may walk dogs on access land, subject to reasonable restrictions. 

The current posted guidance for local dog walkers to walk their dogs with close supervision, but does not stipulate the requirement for being on a lead. Many if not most dog-walkers enjoy the amenity of freely exercising their dogs off-lead but under close supervision. 

The CROW Act also contains specific provisions concerning restrictions on dogs in fields containing sheep, including limitations on the duration of certain restrictions. These stricter restrictions have never previously been applied to the Beacon Hill Amenity.  

 

7. Questions to the council (s) BHCC and RPC

Access

Which parts of the 60 acres are public rights of way? 
Which are CROW access land? 
Which routes will actually be permanently closed 
Which routs will become gated between 1 November and 28 February? 
What statutory authority is being relied upon for each permanent and temporary restriction? 
Will elderly, disabled and mobility-impaired users or users scared of sheep have an equivalent alternative route? If so, how will this be provided. 
Will the council publish a map showing every proposed temporary gate and permanent fence? 
Dogs

What formal risk assessment has been undertaken concerning dogs and sheep? 
What is the council's policy if a sheep approaches or charges a dog walker? 
Who is responsible if a walker is injured by livestock? 
What arrangements exist for reporting aggressive sheep? 
Will there be emergency access for dog owners whose dogs are attacked or injured? 
Health

Has the council obtained advice from its Environmental Health/Public Health/Veterinary officers concerning sheep diseases that can be transferred to humans, and diseases transmitted through faeces? 
Has the council assessed risks to unattended children using the reserve? 
Has it assessed risks from dogs ingesting sheep faeces? 
Ecology

What botanical survey has been carried out before grazing? 
What grazing density and number of sheep are proposed? 
Why is November–February considered appropriate? 
What monitoring will demonstrate whether the grazing has improved biodiversity? 
What will the frequency of monitoring and reporting be?
What happens if monitoring shows deterioration? 
Will monitoring and reporting be mandatory on both BHCC and RPC. 
Will the council publish the ecological monitoring results? 
Governance

When and by whom was the decision made? 
Was there a formal consultation? 
What representations from local users were considered? 
Was the Stewardship Group asked to approve or merely advise on the proposal? 
What formal management plan authorises the change? 
In 2021, City Parks reportedly proposed grazing arrangements while saying it would continue liaising with the Beacon Hill Stewardship Group and provide updates before final decisions were made. The earlier proposal contemplated grazing for 3–4 months, including autumn and spring, while preserving wildflowers and protecting skylarks. 

Do the new arrangements materially change public access and users' experience, and has the council followed the appropriate process for doing so?

Key community concerns are

public safety + lawful access + loss of public amenity+ proportionality of restrictions + evidence for the proposed grazing regime + protection of vulnerable users + proper consultation and transparency+ what are the definitive public-rights-of-way/CROW status of the Beacon Hill 60 acres and the actual legal powers Brighton & Hove City Council has to put gates across the paths. Current proposals are

sheep grazing 1 November–28 February; 
no electric fencing; 
a permanent metal fence along the eastern side; 
temporary gates across all rights of way and the larger “desire lines” while sheep are present; 
removal of the gates when sheep leave; 
notices explaining the law concerning dogs and livestock. 
For a registered public footpath or bridleway, the council cannot simply obstruct the route because it wants to contain sheep. Natural England's guidance says a landowner must avoid putting permanent or temporary fences, gates or other obstructions across a public right of way, and that a new structure requires the highway authority's permission. 

There are circumstances in which a gate can be authorised to control livestock. But the authority must consider whether the structure is necessary and must take account of accessibility requirements. The highway authority also has a duty to protect the public's rights of way and remove obstructions. 

For every proposed temporary gate across a recorded public right of way, please identify the statutory authority under which the gate will be installed and confirm that the necessary highway-authority authorisation has been obtained.

On CROW open-access land, the position is different. People have a statutory right to walk across mapped open-access land, subject to restrictions. Importantly, the council cannot simply turn a four-month grazing period into a four-month general closure of CROW access land.

CROW provides specific mechanisms for restricting access. A landowner can normally restrict access for up to 28 days per year without a further application, while longer restrictions for land management or public safety require the appropriate process. 

Does the proposed four-month grazing arrangement involve any restriction of the statutory CROW access right, and if so, what legal direction, restriction or other authority is being relied upon?

The council is proposing gates across existing routes, and the government guidance specifically says that highway authorities should consider the needs of people with mobility problems and disabilities when dealing with structures on public rights of way. 

Has the council undertaken an accessibility assessment of the proposed gates and fencing, particularly for older people and people with mobility limitations, and what consideration has been given to the Equality Act 2010?

RISKS FOR SHEEP AND DOGS: Since 18 March 2026, legislation has strengthened protection against livestock worrying. The maximum fine has been increased to an unlimited fine and police have additional powers concerning dogs believed to have attacked or worried livestock. That makes proper signage and communication particularly important if the council is introducing sheep into an area historically heavily used by dog walkers. Can the council therefore explain:

exactly where dogs must be on leads; 
whether the entire 60 acres will be regarded as being "in the vicinity of livestock"; 
how owners will know when sheep are present; 
what happens if sheep approach a dog walker; 
how incidents involving sheep and dogs will be reported; 
who is responsible for dealing with an aggressive animal. 
 

OPEN LETTER TO COUNCIL(S)
Brighton and Hove County Council and Rottingdean Parish Council. 

This is a collective representation concerning proposed sheep grazing at Beacon Hill

Subject: Beacon Hill Nature Reserve – proposed sheep grazing and changes to public access

We are local residents and regular users of Beacon Hill Nature Reserve and are writing collectively concerning the proposed changes to grazing arrangements for the period 1 November to 28 February. We recognise the importance of maintaining Beacon Hill's chalk grassland, biodiversity and skylark habitat, and we acknowledge the council's stated view that controlled grazing can contribute to these objectives. Our concerns relate principally to public safety, continued lawful public access, accessibility for older and mobility-impaired users, loss of current amenity, dog walking and the proposed installation of temporary gates across established routes.

1. Public rights of way

The council's published information identifies three public bridleways and several footpaths crossing Beacon Hill. We understand that the proposed scheme involves temporary gates across all rights of way while sheep are present. Please therefore confirm, for each affected public right of way:

its definitive-map status;
location of any new permanent or temporary fencing; 
the location of each proposed gate;
whether the gate is temporary or permanent;
the statutory authority under which each gate will be installed;
whether the necessary highway-authority authorisation has been obtained; and
how the council will ensure that the public right of way remains reasonably convenient and safe to use.
We understand that government guidance requires landowners to avoid obstructing public rights of way and that new structures across such routes require appropriate highway-authority authorisation.

2. CROW open-access land

The council's own information states that most of Beacon Hill is open-access land. Please confirm whether the proposed four-month grazing period will involve any restriction or exclusion of the public's statutory CROW access rights. If so, please identify:

the statutory provision being relied upon;
the duration and geographical extent of the restriction;
the authority responsible for approving or directing it; and
where the restriction will be publicly recorded and displayed.
We would also ask the council to confirm that the proposed arrangements do not inadvertently create a de facto four-month closure of areas for which the public retains statutory access rights.

 

3. Accessibility and older users

Beacon Hill is used extensively by older residents, including people whose mobility is limited but who are nevertheless able to use the existing paths. The introduction of gates and fencing could create additional physical barriers and may make established routes substantially less convenient or accessible.

Please confirm whether an accessibility assessment has been undertaken and whether the council has specifically considered the needs of older and mobility-impaired users.

We ask that the council publish the assessment and explain how the proposed gate design complies with the council's duties concerning accessibility and equality.

4. Dogs and livestock

Beacon Hill has historically been extensively used by local dog walkers. We accept that dogs must be kept under appropriate control and that the presence of livestock creates additional responsibilities for dog owners. However, the introduction of sheep over approximately four months represents a significant change in the environment experienced by regular users. Please provide:

the council's risk assessment concerning dogs and sheep;
the proposed number of sheep;
the proposed grazing density;
the locations in which sheep will be kept;
the proposed warning and information signage;
the arrangements for reporting incidents involving dogs and sheep; and
the procedure to be followed where sheep behave aggressively towards walkers or dogs.
5. Public health and hygiene

We also request that the council confirm whether Environmental Health, Public Health or an appropriately qualified veterinary professional has assessed the potential hygiene implications of sheep faeces in an intensively used public recreational area. We are particularly concerned about exposure involving children and dogs.

We are not asserting that sheep grazing necessarily creates a significant public-health risk. We are asking the council to provide the evidence and professional assessment upon which its decision is based.

6. Ecological evidence

We recognise that traditional sheep grazing is capable of benefiting chalk grassland. Nevertheless, the proposed grazing regime should be based on the actual ecological conditions at Beacon Hill. Please therefore publish:

the ecological survey supporting the proposed grazing regime;
the proposed stocking density and duration;
the botanical monitoring methodology;
the arrangements for monitoring impacts on wildflowers and other flora;
the arrangements for monitoring skylarks and other ground-nesting birds; and
the criteria that will be used to determine whether the grazing regime is succeeding or causing unintended ecological damage.
We would particularly like confirmation that grazing intensity will be reviewed if monitoring identifies adverse effects.

7. Consultation and decision-making

We understand that the Beacon Hill Stewardship Group has been involved in discussions concerning management of the reserve. We ask the council to publish:

the minutes or records of meetings at which the 2026/27 grazing proposal was considered;
the evidence and reports relied upon in reaching the decision;
the representations received from regular users;
the alternatives considered; and
the officer or committee responsible for approving the final arrangement.
8. Request for reconsideration

We are not asking the council to abandon nature conservation or the use of appropriate conservation grazing. We are asking the council to ensure that the proposed scheme does not unnecessarily compromise established public access, create avoidable risks for walkers and dogs, or disadvantage children, older and mobility-impaired users.

In particular, we request that no new temporary gates or other structures be installed across public rights of way until their legal status and appropriate authorisations have been confirmed and made publicly available.

We also request publication of a detailed map showing:

the CROW access land;
every definitive public footpath and bridleway;
every proposed permanent fence;
every proposed temporary gate;
the areas to be occupied by sheep; and
any areas where public access will actually be restricted.
We would welcome a meeting with City Parks and the Beacon Hill Stewardship Group to discuss these matters before the proposed grazing arrangements commence.

Yours faithfully,

Local residents and regular users of Beacon Hill Nature Reserve