Right to roam for England

Given that you work for East Riding Council, does your employer share
your view (asked out of interest not malice) and, if so, what policy
steps are they taking to move this issue forward?

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the
wonderful person Trevor Appleton <[email hidden]>
said

Quoted message said:

I see Marion Shoard (This Land is our Land; A right to roam and other
excellent books) is saying something (in the current issue of Waymark - the
journal for the Institute of Public Rights of Way Officer) I've never seen
written but have been advocating for the past couple of years.

Namely the next stage after CROW should be freedom of (responsible) access
across England that isn't mapped, similar to Scotland, Norway, Sweden,
Finland etc.

Not sure what they meant to imply by 'not mapped'? Everywhere in the UK
is mapped, and has been for 100+ years. Or did you mean the access was
not mapped? Interesting - does your/my back garden fall into that
category?

Quoted message said:

I have been suggesting for a long time that instead of set aside we have 2m
grass strips round every field in England and a right of access along them
(not to mention all woodland, coast, strem, riverbank). It will have to come
eventually, but I doubt if its in time for my retirement in 10 years hence.

Hmm, the current CAP rules are calling for something over 5m, iirc,
however a) its a PITA to walk on an uncut maybe 5' high grass, strip.
Give me a path every time. b) that doesn't get you into the NEXT field,
unless you mandate gates/stiles as well

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the
wonderful person Trevor Appleton <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

I see Marion Shoard (This Land is our Land; A right to roam and other
excellent books) is saying something (in the current issue of Waymark
- the
journal for the Institute of Public Rights of Way Officer) I've never
seen
written but have been advocating for the past couple of years.

Namely the next stage after CROW should be freedom of (responsible)
access
across England that isn't mapped, similar to Scotland, Norway, Sweden,
Finland etc.

Not sure what they meant to imply by 'not mapped'? Everywhere in the UK
is mapped, and has been for 100+ years. Or did you mean the access was
not mapped? Interesting - does your/my back garden fall into that category?

Not in Scotland (unless your back garden is very big indeed). The new
access legislation makes allowances for curtilage - the land immediately
adjacent to a dwelling.

druidh

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:35:16 +0100, "Trevor Appleton"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

| Namely the next stage after CROW should be freedom of (responsible) access
| across England that isn't mapped, similar to Scotland, Norway, Sweden,
| Finland etc.

But *every* square meter of land in the UK has been mapped by the OS.

--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk>
"Intelligent Design?" my knees say *not*.
"Intelligent Design?" my back says *not*.

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:35:16 +0100, "Trevor Appleton"

dropped their trousers and said:

I see Marion Shoard (This Land is our Land; A right to roam and other
excellent books) is saying something (in the current issue of Waymark - the
journal for the Institute of Public Rights of Way Officer) I've never seen
written but have been advocating for the past couple of years.

Namely the next stage after CROW should be freedom of (responsible) access
across England that isn't mapped, similar to Scotland, Norway, Sweden,
Finland etc.

I have been suggesting for a long time that instead of set aside we have 2m
grass strips round every field in England and a right of access along them
(not to mention all woodland, coast, strem, riverbank). It will have to come
eventually, but I doubt if its in time for my retirement in 10 years hence.

Trevor Appleton
Easty Yorkshire

Public Rights of WayOfficer and RA member (and proud of it)
http://www.weatherquest.co.uk/Content/About.asp

http://www.eastriding.gov.uk/az/az_details_new?az_selected=491

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/bbcweather/forecasters/trevorappleton.shtml

Before expanding the rights to do what you want, lets see if the
current 'rights' are being used and the users are behaving
themselves...

Basically, applying the county code...

--
Dewi,

(remove spin for email)

Trevor Appleton said:

Namely the next stage after CROW should be freedom of
(responsible) access

I suspect that 'responsible' will be the least acheivable
aspect of this.

Chris

In uk.rec.rights-of-way Trevor Appleton said:

Namely the next stage after CROW should be freedom of (responsible) access
across England that isn't mapped, similar to Scotland, Norway, Sweden,
Finland etc.

What do you mean exactly by "isn't mapped? Do you simply mean
everywhere that isn't explicitly marked as a Right to Roam area?

Quoted message said:

I have been suggesting for a long time that instead of set aside we have 2m
grass strips round every field in England and a right of access along them
(not to mention all woodland, coast, strem, riverbank). It will have to come
eventually, but I doubt if its in time for my retirement in 10 years hence.

While I would (as a horse rider) love this to become true, I can see
problems (for me as an owner of grazing).

We have seven acres of land most of which is grazing four our horses,
how would we make it possible for a two metre strip all around our
fields to be used for walking etc.? I'd love to make it possible but
I just can't see how it could be done.

--
Chris Green

In message <[email hidden]>, Trevor
Appleton <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

I see Marion Shoard (This Land is our Land; A right to roam and other
excellent books) is saying something (in the current issue of Waymark - the
journal for the Institute of Public Rights of Way Officer) I've never seen
written but have been advocating for the past couple of years.

Namely the next stage after CROW should be freedom of (responsible) access
across England that isn't mapped, similar to Scotland, Norway, Sweden,
Finland etc.

I have been suggesting for a long time that instead of set aside we have 2m
grass strips round every field in England and a right of access along them
(not to mention all woodland, coast, strem, riverbank). It will have to come
eventually, but I doubt if its in time for my retirement in 10 years hence.

I suspect this is proposed with *tongue in cheek* and many of the
downsides have been covered by others, however.....

Current EU requirements are that *hedges* should be protected by an
uncropped area measuring 2m from the centre. Clearly where an existing
hedge is 4m wide this will have no impact but many planted within the
last 50 years are shaved by the plough. Initially there will be many
such strips leading nowhere to mislead the visitors. Ultimately hedges
will be allowed to expand. Failure to provide such strips is not an
offence but is regulated by the threat of reductions (fines) in
entitlements.

In my view, these strips will quickly become impassable due to brambles.

On set-aside, apart from the reduction in food surpluses it is intended
to enhance opportunities for wildlife. Allowing public access,
particularly if accompanied by dogs, is likely to seriously detract from
such benefits.
Uncropped land is required to be managed such that it can be returned to
production within 12 months.

regards

Quoted message said:

--
Tim Lamb

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

Quoted message said:

Given that you work for East Riding Council, does your employer share
your view (asked out of interest not malice) and, if so, what policy

....ha ha thats a good one!

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

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:35:16 +0100, "Trevor Appleton"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

| Namely the next stage after CROW should be freedom of (responsible)
access
| across England that isn't mapped, similar to Scotland, Norway, Sweden,
| Finland etc.

But *every* square meter of land in the UK has been mapped by the OS.

What I mean is that mapping isn't used to show the areas you can go.
Everywhere with exceptions would be included, the exceptions obviouysly
being gardens, within so many metres of property businesses etc.

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

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Trevor
Appleton <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

I see Marion Shoard (This Land is our Land; A right to roam and other
excellent books) is saying something (in the current issue of Waymark -
the
journal for the Institute of Public Rights of Way Officer) I've never seen
written but have been advocating for the past couple of years.

Namely the next stage after CROW should be freedom of (responsible) access
across England that isn't mapped, similar to Scotland, Norway, Sweden,
Finland etc.

I have been suggesting for a long time that instead of set aside we have
2m
grass strips round every field in England and a right of access along them
(not to mention all woodland, coast, strem, riverbank). It will have to
come
eventually, but I doubt if its in time for my retirement in 10 years
hence.

I suspect this is proposed with *tongue in cheek* and many of the
downsides have been covered by others, however.....

Current EU requirements are that *hedges* should be protected by an
uncropped area measuring 2m from the centre. Clearly where an existing
hedge is 4m wide this will have no impact but many planted within the last
50 years are shaved by the plough. Initially there will be many such
strips leading nowhere to mislead the visitors. Ultimately hedges will be
allowed to expand. Failure to provide such strips is not an offence but is
regulated by the threat of reductions (fines) in entitlements.

In my view, these strips will quickly become impassable due to brambles.

On set-aside, apart from the reduction in food surpluses it is intended to
enhance opportunities for wildlife. Allowing public access, particularly
if accompanied by dogs, is likely to seriously detract from such benefits.
Uncropped land is required to be managed such that it can be returned to
production within 12 months.

regards

Quoted message said:

--
Tim Lamb

No *tongue in cheek* about it. If Scotland and other countries can do it we
should be DEMANDING it here.

In message <[email hidden]>, Trevor
Appleton <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

No *tongue in cheek* about it. If Scotland and other countries can do it we
should be DEMANDING it here.

I'm not part of the *we* and firmly believe that *if you want to walk on
land as if you own it, you should buy some*. Agricultural land is about
£2500/acre or roughly 2K/mile of footpath. You buy it, use it and
maintain it.

Before you jump up and down, my home farm has one field out of 9 which
does not have a public right of way running through it and yes, they are
all properly way marked:-)

regards

Quoted message said:

--
Tim Lamb

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 21:22:25 +0100, Tim Lamb <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I'm not part of the *we*

Nor me

Quoted message said:

and firmly believe that *if you want to walk on
land as if you own it, you should buy some*.

Well I don't own and have no wish to own land beyond the curtilage of
my dwelling, or behave as if I did, but would quite like to pass and
repass over bits of it. I don't see why people should have free access
to otherwise undisturbed land though, regularly used access tracks are
another matter.

AJH

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the
wonderful person AJH <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 21:22:25 +0100, Tim Lamb <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I'm not part of the *we*

Nor me

Quoted message said:

and firmly believe that *if you want to walk on
land as if you own it, you should buy some*.

Well I don't own and have no wish to own land beyond the curtilage of
my dwelling, or behave as if I did, but would quite like to pass and
repass over bits of it. I don't see why people should have free access
to otherwise undisturbed land though, regularly used access tracks are
another matter.

I'm not part of the 'we' either, however I =can= make a case why someone
taking 'our' (CAP/government) money/grants might have to put up with
walkers accessing the land. If they don't take the money, then not.

(Just like if the council adopt the road to the farm, it suddenly
acquires a public ROW along it.)

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.

GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

I'm not part of the 'we' either, however I =can= make a case why someone
taking 'our' (CAP/government) money/grants might have to put up with
walkers accessing the land.

Ok this is definitely a requirement for the new woodland grants.

Quoted message said:

If they don't take the money, then not.

In the case of woodlands around here I think you'll find many are not
applying for the grant, people own land for many reasons, wealthy
people often use it as a buffer. Public access reduces the
desirability of some land to some buyers.

Anyway public monetary support for farming is all but gone apart from
schemes to enhance wildlife, and disturbance is one of the most
troublesome things when managing for wildlife.

Quoted message said:

(Just like if the council adopt the road to the farm, it suddenly
acquires a public ROW along it.)

I've got little problem with the public, walking for air and
recreation, making use of access paths currently only used for
farm/forest activities.

AJH

In message <[email hidden]>, AJH
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 21:22:25 +0100, Tim Lamb <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

and firmly believe that *if you want to walk on
land as if you own it, you should buy some*.

Well I don't own and have no wish to own land beyond the curtilage of
my dwelling, or behave as if I did, but would quite like to pass and
repass over bits of it. I don't see why people should have free access
to otherwise undisturbed land though, regularly used access tracks are
another matter.

OK but you are a responsible, country wise adult:-)

A good proportion of my potential visitors do not fit this category.
Notifying Kevin and Sharon with their football carrying offspring and
off lead dogs that you have special privileges not available to them is
not practicable. In consequence land managers opt for the lowest common
denominator and insist that access is restricted to existing PRoWs.

Land is owned for a variety of reasons but mainly for potential income.
This may be some development hope; housing, minerals, paid recreation,
shooting, fishing etc. Allowing free access detracts from these *hopes*
and is likely to reduce value.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 21:22:25 +0100, Tim Lamb <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

*if you want to walk on
land as if you own it,

Is that a special type of walking? What's ownership got to do with
access rights? Nothing.
--
R
o
o
n
e
y

"I always knew the entire Green party were nutters" - Ken Livingstone

In message <[email hidden]>, GSV Three Minds in a Can
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the
wonderful person AJH <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 21:22:25 +0100, Tim Lamb <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I'm not part of the *we*

Nor me

Quoted message said:

and firmly believe that *if you want to walk on
land as if you own it, you should buy some*.

Well I don't own and have no wish to own land beyond the curtilage of
my dwelling, or behave as if I did, but would quite like to pass and
repass over bits of it. I don't see why people should have free access
to otherwise undisturbed land though, regularly used access tracks are
another matter.

I'm not part of the 'we' either, however I =can= make a case why
someone taking 'our' (CAP/government) money/grants might have to put up
with walkers accessing the land. If they don't take the money, then not.

(Just like if the council adopt the road to the farm, it suddenly
acquires a public ROW along it.)

If the highway authority adopts a private track it takes on the
responsibility for the upkeep. I.e. maintained at public expense.

CAP payments are finite and at the whim of the council of ministers. I
suspect that if UK govt./treasury could chose, payments would not be
made in this country. We have just emerged from a protracted review
which apparently fixed the payments for the next 8 years only to find
that our PM wants to re-review it after 4.

Payments have changed from being production related to eventually being
area based. Some 30% of entitlement has already been hived off to
support what are perceived as environmentally attractive activities but
actually only temporarily placate the loudest shouting lobby group.

Personally I would prefer to be paid for the food I produce rather than
be put in the awkward position of a beneficiary of public funds to
further post war governments cheap food policies.

regards

Quoted message said:

--
Tim Lamb

In uk.rec.rights-of-way GSV Three Minds in a Can said:

I'm not part of the 'we' either, however I =can= make a case why someone
taking 'our' (CAP/government) money/grants might have to put up with
walkers accessing the land. If they don't take the money, then not.

We own seven acres, mostly pasture. The rest of our village is made
up of a lot of similar parcels of land, surrounded by larger farms.

I'm quite happy for the odd 'visitor' to potter around our fields,
though it's a very rare occurrence. What I'm not clear about is how
to make field margins etc. generally available for walking etc. The
occasional visitor can duck under fences (or climb over them,
depending on type) but if there are to be places for significant
numbers of people to walk how are they going to get from field to
field etc. without adding gates or causing damage?

--
Chris Green