From the BMC site

Is it not about time the English followed the Scots for a change and
had decent access laws?

Lindsay
www.caledoniahilltreks.com

In article <[email hidden]>,
Lindsay <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Is it not about time the English followed the Scots for a change and
had decent access laws?

That would be nice.

This particular place was originally to be designated open access under
the CROW act but the landowner illegally 'improved' the land and
appealed against the designation. Sadly, and contrary to the evidence
presented, she won her appeal so it is not open access. :-(

--

Dominic Sexton

Dominic Sexton said:

This particular place was originally to be designated open access under
the CROW act but the landowner illegally 'improved' the land and
appealed against the designation. Sadly, and contrary to the evidence
presented, she won her appeal so it is not open access. :-(

I take it you haven't taken the time to properly study the case and
the legisaltion surrounding it before making this grossly over
simplistic statement?

The land has quite plainly been enclosed in the recent past and the
improvement was found to be perfectly legal. You may or may not be
correct in linking the 2 cases but CROW should not be allowed to
impose management restrictions on landowners. Land improvement and
public access quite plainly are and should remain 2 distinct and
seperate issues.

Tim Jones said:

Dominic Sexton said:

This particular place was originally to be designated open access under
the CROW act but the landowner illegally 'improved' the land and
appealed against the designation. Sadly, and contrary to the evidence
presented, she won her appeal so it is not open access. :-(

I take it you haven't taken the time to properly study the case and
the legisaltion surrounding it before making this grossly over
simplistic statement?

The land has quite plainly been enclosed in the recent past and the
improvement was found to be perfectly legal. You may or may not be
correct in linking the 2 cases but CROW should not be allowed to
impose management restrictions on landowners. Land improvement and
public access quite plainly are and should remain 2 distinct and
seperate issues.

You're correcnt in saying that these are two separate issues. There's no
need to restrict access just because the land has been "improved" (ref:
Holyrood, 2004)

druidh

No way....as long as the access isn't near buildings.etc. We should
ALL be allowed access. FULL STOP.

David.

In article <[email hidden]>, Tim Jones
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Dominic Sexton said:

This particular place was originally to be designated open access under
the CROW act but the landowner illegally 'improved' the land and
appealed against the designation. Sadly, and contrary to the evidence
presented, she won her appeal so it is not open access. :-(

I take it you haven't taken the time to properly study the case and
the legisaltion surrounding it before making this grossly over
simplistic statement?

The land has quite plainly been enclosed in the recent past and the
improvement was found to be perfectly legal. You may or may not be
correct in linking the 2 cases but CROW should not be allowed to
impose management restrictions on landowners. Land improvement and
public access quite plainly are and should remain 2 distinct and
seperate issues.

The following article says that DEFRA successfully prosecuted the
landowner for the 'improvement'.

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/news_det.asp?item_id=795

A successful prosecution indicates to me that the landowner's action was
illegal as I stated above.

The land owner appealed against the designation of the land as open
access.

I don't know if those two facts are linked but I got the impression from
the BMC's writings on the matter that many people thought that they
were.

I have no opinion, nor did I state any opinion as to the landowner's
actions being in contravention of the CROW act so have no argument with
your last two sentences.

I haven't studied the legislation directly but have read about it in the
outdoor press and from the BMC. I have read about this particular case
and have taken an interest in local CROW matters including appeals.

As far as I can tell my post did not contain any factual errors though
you might not agree with my 'sadly'. On the other hand your post
contains at least one error 'the improvement was found to be perfectly
legal'.

If you still think the improvement was not illegal please see DEFRA's
news article.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2004/040611b.htm

--

Dominic Sexton

The message <[email hidden]>
from Dominic Sexton <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

If you still think the improvement was not illegal please see DEFRA's
news article.

Quoted message said:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2004/040611b.htm

"A District Judge at Plymouth Magistrates' Court found that the
landowner failed to obtain a consent under the Regulations before
engaging in scrub clearance and the application of fertiliser (calcified
seaweed and farmyard manure) on four fields of unimproved grassland
around Vixen Tor. The landowner was fined £1,000 and £5,000 costs. Defra
will now move towards ensuring the reinstatement of this land".

Once reinstated does the grassland again become unimproved and open
access under CROW?

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 62 summits
New - 28 (Marilyns 14, Nuttalls 5, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 34 (Marilyns 16, Nuttalls 24, Wainwrights 12, Outlying Fells 0)

Dominic Sexton said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Tim Jones
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Dominic Sexton said:

This particular place was originally to be designated open access under
the CROW act but the landowner illegally 'improved' the land and
appealed against the designation. Sadly, and contrary to the evidence
presented, she won her appeal so it is not open access. :-(

I take it you haven't taken the time to properly study the case and
the legisaltion surrounding it before making this grossly over
simplistic statement?

The land has quite plainly been enclosed in the recent past and the
improvement was found to be perfectly legal. You may or may not be
correct in linking the 2 cases but CROW should not be allowed to
impose management restrictions on landowners. Land improvement and
public access quite plainly are and should remain 2 distinct and
seperate issues.

The following article says that DEFRA successfully prosecuted the
landowner for the 'improvement'.

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/news_det.asp?item_id=795

A successful prosecution indicates to me that the landowner's action was
illegal as I stated above.

The land owner appealed against the designation of the land as open
access.

I don't know if those two facts are linked but I got the impression from
the BMC's writings on the matter that many people thought that they
were.

I have no opinion, nor did I state any opinion as to the landowner's
actions being in contravention of the CROW act so have no argument with
your last two sentences.

I haven't studied the legislation directly but have read about it in the
outdoor press and from the BMC. I have read about this particular case
and have taken an interest in local CROW matters including appeals.

As far as I can tell my post did not contain any factual errors though
you might not agree with my 'sadly'. On the other hand your post
contains at least one error 'the improvement was found to be perfectly
legal'.

If you still think the improvement was not illegal please see DEFRA's
news article.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2004/040611b.htm

Your post does contain factual errors.

If you study

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/808.html

you will find that the High Court found that the improvements were
legal. I suppose that we shouldn't be to surprised that neither
DEFRA or any of the campaigning bodies who relied heavily on the
contention that the improvement was illegal have publicised these
findings!

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:22:47 GMT, Roger <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from Dominic Sexton <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

If you still think the improvement was not illegal please see DEFRA's
news article.

Quoted message said:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2004/040611b.htm

"A District Judge at Plymouth Magistrates' Court found that the
landowner failed to obtain a consent under the Regulations before
engaging in scrub clearance and the application of fertiliser (calcified
seaweed and farmyard manure) on four fields of unimproved grassland
around Vixen Tor. The landowner was fined £1,000 and £5,000 costs. Defra
will now move towards ensuring the reinstatement of this land".

Once reinstated does the grassland again become unimproved and open
access under CROW?

Well it might have if it wasn't for the inconveient fact that the High
Court allowed an appeal againest this judgement, therefore the land
does not need to be "reinstated".

In any legislation there will be borderline cases, Vixen Tor is one of
these and as such access will need to be negotiated rather than
claimed as a right under CROW.

In article <[email hidden]>, Tim Jones
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

In any legislation there will be borderline cases, Vixen Tor is one of
these and as such access will need to be negotiated rather than
claimed as a right under CROW.

Well, if the attitudes of the owners, as publicised during the recent
action, are anything to go by, what can members of the public expect
from such negotiation?

I have never been to Vixen Tor, nor am I ever likely to. However, I
downloaded the OS map and some pictures to be better acquainted.

Vixen Tor is a handsome lump of granite. A RoW passes close by. It is
difficult to see why any owner would not look favourably on the quite
reasonable desires of folk to divert from the RoW to visit the rocks.
Apart from bloody mindedness, perhaps?

What are the grounds for refusing access?

--

Russ Clare

In article <[email hidden]>, Tim Jones
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Dominic Sexton said:

If you still think the improvement was not illegal please see DEFRA's
news article.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2004/040611b.htm

Your post does contain factual errors.

If you study

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/808.html

you will find that the High Court found that the improvements were
legal.

As you might have gathered from above I was unaware of the overturning
of her conviction.

Quoted message said:

I suppose that we shouldn't be to surprised that neither
DEFRA or any of the campaigning bodies who relied heavily on the
contention that the improvement was illegal have publicised these
findings!

I have now found that the RA have publicised the outcome of the appeal:

http://www.ramblers.org.uk/news/archive/2005/maryalfordappeal.html

Sadly the BMC, my main source of access news, do not appear to have
reported on the appeal in the High Court.

--

Dominic Sexton

The message <[email hidden]>
from [email hidden] (Tim Jones) contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Once reinstated does the grassland again become unimproved and open
access under CROW?

Quoted message said:

Well it might have if it wasn't for the inconveient fact that the High
Court allowed an appeal againest this judgement, therefore the land
does not need to be "reinstated".

Quoted message said:

In any legislation there will be borderline cases, Vixen Tor is one of
these and as such access will need to be negotiated rather than
claimed as a right under CROW.

Surely the finding of fact:

"From 1966 until 2002 the farm was tenanted by farmers called Cole. It
appeared to have been abandoned by them"

should be enough to allow the climbers path to the crag to be claimed as
a PROW and indeed also any routes that have been in use for more than 20
years before the new owners tried to exclude access?

--
Roger Chapman so far this year 62 summits
New - 28 (Marilyns 14, Nuttalls 5, Outlying Fells 10)
Repeats - 34 (Marilyns 16, Nuttalls 24, Wainwrights 12, Outlying Fells 0)

Russ Clare said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Tim Jones
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

In any legislation there will be borderline cases, Vixen Tor is one of
these and as such access will need to be negotiated rather than
claimed as a right under CROW.

Well, if the attitudes of the owners, as publicised during the recent
action, are anything to go by, what can members of the public expect
from such negotiation?

Who knowsthe whole situation is a mess and attitudes on both sides are
somewhat entrenched now. I'd tend to be a bit wary of using the recent
incident as a gauge of where the original attitudes lay, I think we'd
all be a bit jaded after spending so long in court over various cases
whilst attempts were being made to force access rights. To be honest
I've never been a great fan of CROW from the moment it was proposed,
we had de facto access to vast areas of countryside and it was pretty
obvious that the use of such a blunt instrument to force access
elsewhere was going to cause as many problems as it solved. At the end
of the day I seriously wonder whether at the end of the day we will be
any better off for it.

Quoted message said:

I have never been to Vixen Tor, nor am I ever likely to. However, I
downloaded the OS map and some pictures to be better acquainted.

Vixen Tor is a handsome lump of granite. A RoW passes close by. It is
difficult to see why any owner would not look favourably on the quite
reasonable desires of folk to divert from the RoW to visit the rocks.
Apart from bloody mindedness, perhaps?

Bloody mindedness or human nature, who can tell? IMO there can be
little doubt that long and protracted efforts to force the issue
haven't helped in this case.

Quoted message said:

What are the grounds for refusing access?

The other side of the coin is of course what are the grounds for
allowing access? I want to go there is all well and good, but life
is such that we don't all get everythig we want right now. Why focus
on a few situations where there is no access when we have thousands
and thousands of acres that we can use freely? Vixen Tor will be
there for a very long time, so why create further resistance from the
landowners by pushing so hard for access right now this minute?

"Roger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from [email hidden] (Tim Jones) contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Once reinstated does the grassland again become unimproved and open
access under CROW?

Quoted message said:

Well it might have if it wasn't for the inconveient fact that the High
Court allowed an appeal againest this judgement, therefore the land
does not need to be "reinstated".

Quoted message said:

In any legislation there will be borderline cases, Vixen Tor is one of
these and as such access will need to be negotiated rather than
claimed as a right under CROW.

Surely the finding of fact:

"From 1966 until 2002 the farm was tenanted by farmers called Cole. It
appeared to have been abandoned by them"

should be enough to allow the climbers path to the crag to be claimed as
a PROW and indeed also any routes that have been in use for more than 20
years before the new owners tried to exclude access?

That is what I do not understand, then again I am not an expert on access,
but I was of the opinion that if it could be shown that a route had been
used by the public for many years, it automatically became a right of way.