This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Access shock at Vixen Tor undermines CRoW Act
24 February, 2005
A serious flaw in the Countryside and Right of Way Act has been exposed today with a Planning Inspectorate decision on access to Vixen Tor on Dartmoor. An appeal by the landowner against the mapping of her land as ‘open access’ has been upheld, despite her illegal improvement of the land to escape falling under CRoW’s definition of moorland.
When the CRoW Act is applied to the Southwest, Vixen Tor will not be included on maps as open to the public, and the owner will be within her legal right to exclude people from one of the region’s best crags.
Climbers and walkers enjoyed unlimited access to Vixen Tor for more than 30 years with the agreement of the previous owner. But this arrangement ground to a halt in 2003 when a new landowner, Ms Mary Alford of Moortown Farm, Tavistock, installed a barbed-wire fence around the crag. She removed existing stiles and spray-painted ‘Private Property – Keep Out!’ at a traditional access point.
Most controversially, she also improved the land by spreading seaweed and manure over it, changing a significant proportion of the field from open moorland habitat to semi-improved pasture. Ms Alford was successfully prosecuted by DEFRA for this action, and widely condemned by local access and conservation campaigners.
But the Planning Inspectorate’s decision to ignore Vixen Tor’s illegal improvement in hearing Ms Alford’s appeal now opens the door to similar action across Britain from other landowners to use similar tactics – flouting the law to get their land removed from open-access designation.
The BMC’s Regional Access and Conservation Officer Guy Keating said: ‘This decision represents a considerable blow to the intended spirit of the CRoW Act. Today has been a disaster for anyone who enjoys recreation in the nation’s wild spaces’
The BMC will continue to pursue the issue of access to Vixen Tor, and together with the Ramblers’ Association, will campaign for the Dartmoor National Park Authority to impose a statutory access order on the site. Given the NPA’s previous statements, this seems a strong possibility. In the meantime, it remains up to individuals to make their own decision about climbing on Vixen Tor.
For further information or comment, please contact BMC Access & Conservation Officers Graham Lynch (Tel. 0161 438 3333) or Guy Keating (Tel. 0161 4383309).
The BMC.
24 February, 2005
A serious flaw in the Countryside and Right of Way Act has been exposed today with a Planning Inspectorate decision on access to Vixen Tor on Dartmoor. An appeal by the landowner against the mapping of her land as ‘open access’ has been upheld, despite her illegal improvement of the land to escape falling under CRoW’s definition of moorland.
When the CRoW Act is applied to the Southwest, Vixen Tor will not be included on maps as open to the public, and the owner will be within her legal right to exclude people from one of the region’s best crags.
Climbers and walkers enjoyed unlimited access to Vixen Tor for more than 30 years with the agreement of the previous owner. But this arrangement ground to a halt in 2003 when a new landowner, Ms Mary Alford of Moortown Farm, Tavistock, installed a barbed-wire fence around the crag. She removed existing stiles and spray-painted ‘Private Property – Keep Out!’ at a traditional access point.
Most controversially, she also improved the land by spreading seaweed and manure over it, changing a significant proportion of the field from open moorland habitat to semi-improved pasture. Ms Alford was successfully prosecuted by DEFRA for this action, and widely condemned by local access and conservation campaigners.
But the Planning Inspectorate’s decision to ignore Vixen Tor’s illegal improvement in hearing Ms Alford’s appeal now opens the door to similar action across Britain from other landowners to use similar tactics – flouting the law to get their land removed from open-access designation.
The BMC’s Regional Access and Conservation Officer Guy Keating said: ‘This decision represents a considerable blow to the intended spirit of the CRoW Act. Today has been a disaster for anyone who enjoys recreation in the nation’s wild spaces’
The BMC will continue to pursue the issue of access to Vixen Tor, and together with the Ramblers’ Association, will campaign for the Dartmoor National Park Authority to impose a statutory access order on the site. Given the NPA’s previous statements, this seems a strong possibility. In the meantime, it remains up to individuals to make their own decision about climbing on Vixen Tor.
For further information or comment, please contact BMC Access & Conservation Officers Graham Lynch (Tel. 0161 438 3333) or Guy Keating (Tel. 0161 4383309).
The BMC.
In reply to GuyK: amazing...gutted....
Grrrrrrrr! That's annoying, in fact thats beyond annoying, i can't believe that they've effectively turned a blind eye to the 'improvements'.
I guess Angel of mercy just became impossible (rather than a optimistic hope!).
Neil
that is seriously bad news. real shame to lose public access to such an awesome piece of rock, whether you're a climber or not and it certainly seems to undermine CRoW. a real dartmoor landmark:
http://www.westcountryviews.co.uk/dartmoor/vixentor/vixentor08.htm
http://www.westcountryviews.co.uk/dartmoor/vixentor/vixentor08.htm
In reply to GuyK: Completely out of order mass trespass required.
In reply to GuyK:
You lost. It is a pity that we cannot impose a 'statutory access order' on M20 7ZA just as the BMC sought in their 'wisdom', against Mrs Alford and her son on their private land at Vixen Tor. The Inspector was probably influenced in his findings, by the reports of members of the BMC bolting (damaging by drilling unquarried rock)from Lands End to the Highlands of Scotland in the last twenty years, against the wishes of, the vast majority of British climbers.
You lost. It is a pity that we cannot impose a 'statutory access order' on M20 7ZA just as the BMC sought in their 'wisdom', against Mrs Alford and her son on their private land at Vixen Tor. The Inspector was probably influenced in his findings, by the reports of members of the BMC bolting (damaging by drilling unquarried rock)from Lands End to the Highlands of Scotland in the last twenty years, against the wishes of, the vast majority of British climbers.
In reply to Mark Kemball: Definitely sounds like the next step, after all we only need to look at Hunt-sabs for how to break the law until it becomes the law!
In reply to climbright: Just exactly whose side are you on?
In reply to GuyK: The route pictured in the UKC news section looks good!
In reply to Iggy_B: Docker's Dilemma E5 6a/b - superb get there and climb it.
In reply to Mark Kemball: Is there a bus there from Sheffield or Bolton? :P
In reply to climbright:
Please elaborate on what you have said, i don't get it. What is M20 7ZA? What reports did he see??
Are you having a wind up?
Astonishing decision, a mass trespass organised between the ramblers and the Climbers should be organissed.
Please elaborate on what you have said, i don't get it. What is M20 7ZA? What reports did he see??
Are you having a wind up?
Astonishing decision, a mass trespass organised between the ramblers and the Climbers should be organissed.
In reply to Jules King: I assume M20 7ZA is meant to be a postcode, although the BMC's is M20 2BB. Just where on earth is climbright coming from?
In reply to steve barnbrook:
And is he related the the enigmatic anonymous poster on the earlier thread who hinted that 'certain information' had been passed to Mrs Alford's team?
And is he related the the enigmatic anonymous poster on the earlier thread who hinted that 'certain information' had been passed to Mrs Alford's team?
In reply to Dave Garnett: Well the grammar seems far too good to be Denis!!
In reply to GuyK: It just not right!
Mass 20,000 tresspassssss
RT Pic-nic
back hander comes to mind?
Stu
Mass 20,000 tresspassssss
RT Pic-nic
back hander comes to mind?
Stu
In reply to Stu Tyrrell: My blood is boiling.....
In reply to steve barnbrook:
Tried it on MultiMap.. doesn't work. I recon Climbright (climb right or Clim bright ) is on a wind up.
Tried it on MultiMap.. doesn't work. I recon Climbright (climb right or Clim bright ) is on a wind up.
In reply to Jules King:
Climbright is correct. There is an appeals process (as in any law) - and the landholder in this case won.
So what's your problem? The fact that you lost?
> Tried it on MultiMap.. doesn't work. I recon Climbright (climb right or Clim bright ) is on a wind up.
Climbright is correct. There is an appeals process (as in any law) - and the landholder in this case won.
So what's your problem? The fact that you lost?
In reply to Anonymous: the sore point is not that "we" lost but that in order to win her appeal the landowner made "improvements" the the land which are themselves illegal under CROW, that this was ignored when cosidering the appeal sets a very bad precident which could potentially provide a loophole allowing all landowners to exempt their land leaving us with nothing to climb on or walk over.
In reply to Ian Straton:
Then the question to ask is on what basis did the appeal proceedings find in in her favour, isn't it? That is, which aspect of the various laws do you think is deficient?
(I am not trying to be a smart-arse here. I am merely playing devil's advocate to a highly tendentious initial posting, followed by several me-too-I-want-it-all offerings.)
> ... that this was ignored when cosidering the appeal sets a very bad precident ...
Then the question to ask is on what basis did the appeal proceedings find in in her favour, isn't it? That is, which aspect of the various laws do you think is deficient?
(I am not trying to be a smart-arse here. I am merely playing devil's advocate to a highly tendentious initial posting, followed by several me-too-I-want-it-all offerings.)
In reply to Stu Tyrrell:
Obviously not.
But in *detail*, please tell us what legal process you think has failed in this case. That is, legally, what do you think *exactly* went wrong?
> Are you saying its all to break the law and prosper from it?
Obviously not.
But in *detail*, please tell us what legal process you think has failed in this case. That is, legally, what do you think *exactly* went wrong?
In reply to Anonymous: seems a bit obvious, someone took illegal measures, was prosecuted for these and yet they were ignored during classification
In reply to Justin:
I don't agree at all that this is obvious.
One question you should be asking is, for example: 'what aspects are legally allowed to be considered in the classification process?'
Do you think you have identified a problem with the CRoW legislation? If so, *exactly* what? I would like to know since then we may have a chance of getting it rectified.
> Seems a bit obvious, someone took illegal measures, was prosecuted for these and yet they were ignored during classification.
I don't agree at all that this is obvious.
One question you should be asking is, for example: 'what aspects are legally allowed to be considered in the classification process?'
Do you think you have identified a problem with the CRoW legislation? If so, *exactly* what? I would like to know since then we may have a chance of getting it rectified.
In reply to Anonymous:
Eh?
Land gets mapped as open access land.
Landowner takes exception and turns land into farmland illegally (and is prosecuted for this).
Landowner then appeals open access classification as the land is now farmland.
Landowner wins.
So there is nothing (apparently) to stop any landowner who takes exception to some of their land being mapped under CRoW turning that land into farmland and thus getting it reclassified.
Which part of that strikes you as a good and just idea?
Victim of Mathematics
Eh?
Land gets mapped as open access land.
Landowner takes exception and turns land into farmland illegally (and is prosecuted for this).
Landowner then appeals open access classification as the land is now farmland.
Landowner wins.
So there is nothing (apparently) to stop any landowner who takes exception to some of their land being mapped under CRoW turning that land into farmland and thus getting it reclassified.
Which part of that strikes you as a good and just idea?
Victim of Mathematics
In reply to Anonymous:
Your 'apparently' is significant. And what strikes *me* as a good idea is irrelevant in all of this.
You need to forensically examine the legislation. If it truly permits something as black-and-white as you imply, then something somewhere has a flaw.
But the details are very important, and nobody so far in this thread has pointed out anything specific.
> So there is nothing (apparently) ...
>
> Which part of that strikes you as a good and just idea?
>
> Which part of that strikes you as a good and just idea?
Your 'apparently' is significant. And what strikes *me* as a good idea is irrelevant in all of this.
You need to forensically examine the legislation. If it truly permits something as black-and-white as you imply, then something somewhere has a flaw.
But the details are very important, and nobody so far in this thread has pointed out anything specific.
In reply to Anonymous:
>But the details are very important, and nobody so far in >this thread has pointed out anything specific.
That's because we're climbers not (with a few notable exceptions) lawyers. Whilst I am obviously concerned if there is a loophole as large as has been suggested in the CRoW legislation, I will leave further investigation to those of a legal bent. What I am more concerned about are the specifics of this case are so clear and yet the results have still come out as they have.
Demanding evidence of specific legal loopholes here strikes me as rather pointless and unnecessarily pedantic (and being a committed pedant myself that's saying something).
Victim of Mathematics
>But the details are very important, and nobody so far in >this thread has pointed out anything specific.
That's because we're climbers not (with a few notable exceptions) lawyers. Whilst I am obviously concerned if there is a loophole as large as has been suggested in the CRoW legislation, I will leave further investigation to those of a legal bent. What I am more concerned about are the specifics of this case are so clear and yet the results have still come out as they have.
Demanding evidence of specific legal loopholes here strikes me as rather pointless and unnecessarily pedantic (and being a committed pedant myself that's saying something).
Victim of Mathematics
In reply to GuyK:
What is the planning inspectorates email address? I'd like to express my views on their decision directly to them.
What is the planning inspectorates email address? I'd like to express my views on their decision directly to them.
In reply to GuyK:
"campaign for the Dartmoor National Park Authority to impose a statutory access order on the site"
Now there's an interesting thought. Wouldn't it be nice if, for once, the authorities actually used the powers they have at their disposal in defence of the public instead of the land owner. I'm not holding my breath though.............
"campaign for the Dartmoor National Park Authority to impose a statutory access order on the site"
Now there's an interesting thought. Wouldn't it be nice if, for once, the authorities actually used the powers they have at their disposal in defence of the public instead of the land owner. I'm not holding my breath though.............
In reply to john horscroft:
Well if there were to be mass trespasses on that bit of land and another on MOD land at the same time maybe they would look into it.
Has the inspector involved had his bank account scrutineered for payments?
Perhaps someone should check, and also get a medical report to see he is of sound mind.
Well if there were to be mass trespasses on that bit of land and another on MOD land at the same time maybe they would look into it.
Has the inspector involved had his bank account scrutineered for payments?
Perhaps someone should check, and also get a medical report to see he is of sound mind.
I thought there were laws in the uk that stopped people benefitting from crime? So that robbers don't get to keep their ill-gotten gains etc? Can't that law be applied to this case? OK, so (apparently) a loophole in teh law has resulted in a decision that runs contrary to the intention of CRoW, but aren't there other laws that can be used to hit back, and hit back harder?
I'm just thinking back to the days when peeps tried to wriggle out of a cannabis conviction by claiming they were smoking teh leaves not the flowers (which at that time .... 70s... wasn't specifically illegal). This strategy was soon abandoned when the police hit back by using the heroin laws to get people, because cannabis (apparently) contains teensy amounts of the prohibited substance that heroin contains.
So ... isn't there a law we can use to fight back against this decision, even if only to stop any other landowners trying the same trick?
I'm just thinking back to the days when peeps tried to wriggle out of a cannabis conviction by claiming they were smoking teh leaves not the flowers (which at that time .... 70s... wasn't specifically illegal). This strategy was soon abandoned when the police hit back by using the heroin laws to get people, because cannabis (apparently) contains teensy amounts of the prohibited substance that heroin contains.
So ... isn't there a law we can use to fight back against this decision, even if only to stop any other landowners trying the same trick?
In reply to Anonymous: by Jules
Who are you? You are not playing devils advovcate. Are you climbright? What is your link with this?
Who are you? You are not playing devils advovcate. Are you climbright? What is your link with this?
In reply to Anonymous: Even if not paying devil's advocate, these folk are entitled to their own opinion...no matter how wrong.
In reply to gingerkate:
This is the very point that irks me the most Kate. Back in the dim and distant past, I took and manifestly failed Law A-level (the gold standard dontcha know?). The only thing I remember is the phrase, "Don't go to the law with dirty hands." Which is exactly what this woman has done! If you manage to win an appeal under CROW as a result of doing something illegal thenm it sets the most appaling precedent. The only analogy I can think of is robbing a bank, being caught and convicted but managing to conceal the ill-gotten gains and then sueing the bank because some of the banknotes were forged!
This is the very point that irks me the most Kate. Back in the dim and distant past, I took and manifestly failed Law A-level (the gold standard dontcha know?). The only thing I remember is the phrase, "Don't go to the law with dirty hands." Which is exactly what this woman has done! If you manage to win an appeal under CROW as a result of doing something illegal thenm it sets the most appaling precedent. The only analogy I can think of is robbing a bank, being caught and convicted but managing to conceal the ill-gotten gains and then sueing the bank because some of the banknotes were forged!
In reply to john horscroft:
Or murdering your partner for the insurance money, being charged with murder, found guilty and convicted... and, (after you've served your term), still walking off with the insurance money...
It's hardly a subtle sort of loophole is it?
Or murdering your partner for the insurance money, being charged with murder, found guilty and convicted... and, (after you've served your term), still walking off with the insurance money...
It's hardly a subtle sort of loophole is it?
In reply to GuyK:
Guy, Have you seen an actual transcript of the appeal hearing (if there is a requirement to keep one) or copies of papers submitted in support of the appeal, and/or the written decision of the appeals chairman? If not is it possible to apply for such under the Freedom of Information Act?
There does seem to be an important principle at stake here and I think every effort should be made, if necessary by the BMCs legal advisors, to find out the full facts behind this decision before moving to the potential next step of applying for statutory access under some other NP order.
Dave
Guy, Have you seen an actual transcript of the appeal hearing (if there is a requirement to keep one) or copies of papers submitted in support of the appeal, and/or the written decision of the appeals chairman? If not is it possible to apply for such under the Freedom of Information Act?
There does seem to be an important principle at stake here and I think every effort should be made, if necessary by the BMCs legal advisors, to find out the full facts behind this decision before moving to the potential next step of applying for statutory access under some other NP order.
Dave
In reply to Dave Musgrove:
Dave, these are publicly available from the planning inspectorate at:
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/access/appeals/southwest/documents/...
Vixen Tor lies wholly in field 7, to which paragraphs 19-22 relate.
To summarise, the decision hinged on an assessment of whether the land within the field 7 boundary qualified as 'wholly or predominantly of mountain, moor, heath or down' (definition of 'open country' from s1(2)(a)of the CRoW Act). Due to the mix of vegetation and topography, the assistant inspector found difficulty in precisely determining the proportions of qualifying habitat and improved or semi-improved grassland. As her study failed to find significantly more qualifying habitat than improved grassland, the conclusion was that the qualifying cover could not be considered to be 'predominant', therefore it was found that field 7 could not be considered to be 'access land'.
You might also like to note that, in paragraph 19, the inspector acknowledges the strong feelings that this dispute has raised. However, he also clarifies that the only grounds upon which the decision could be based was 'whether the land comprises a predominance of qualifying MMHD habitat', contrary to speculative suggestions above.
This is a disappointing result, especially in light of what some may consider to be a tenuous conclusion. However, lets hope there may be some mileage in the possibility of an order from the Dartmoor NPA, as Guy suggests. In the mean time, thanks to the BMC guys for pushing hard on this issue.
Jem
Dave, these are publicly available from the planning inspectorate at:
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/access/appeals/southwest/documents/...
Vixen Tor lies wholly in field 7, to which paragraphs 19-22 relate.
To summarise, the decision hinged on an assessment of whether the land within the field 7 boundary qualified as 'wholly or predominantly of mountain, moor, heath or down' (definition of 'open country' from s1(2)(a)of the CRoW Act). Due to the mix of vegetation and topography, the assistant inspector found difficulty in precisely determining the proportions of qualifying habitat and improved or semi-improved grassland. As her study failed to find significantly more qualifying habitat than improved grassland, the conclusion was that the qualifying cover could not be considered to be 'predominant', therefore it was found that field 7 could not be considered to be 'access land'.
You might also like to note that, in paragraph 19, the inspector acknowledges the strong feelings that this dispute has raised. However, he also clarifies that the only grounds upon which the decision could be based was 'whether the land comprises a predominance of qualifying MMHD habitat', contrary to speculative suggestions above.
This is a disappointing result, especially in light of what some may consider to be a tenuous conclusion. However, lets hope there may be some mileage in the possibility of an order from the Dartmoor NPA, as Guy suggests. In the mean time, thanks to the BMC guys for pushing hard on this issue.
Jem
In reply to Jem:
Well if the inspector found the 'improved ' bit of land and went off that the decision should be flawed, and she should have her arse kicked from LE to JOG to impress that fact on her.
Well if the inspector found the 'improved ' bit of land and went off that the decision should be flawed, and she should have her arse kicked from LE to JOG to impress that fact on her.
In reply to Jem:
Jem,
Thanks for that. Being able to read a transcript of the proceedings is very enlightening. It seems obvious, therefore, that the appeal focused on the very narrow criteria surrounding only what exactly is growing on the land now, and appeared to give no creedance to how those plants got there.
I still think that the wider issue of the illegal improvement should have been a factor, but if the legislation dosen't allow for that then someone at the Department of the environment needs to be looking at the act and considering an amendment to close this loophole in future.
Dave
Jem,
Thanks for that. Being able to read a transcript of the proceedings is very enlightening. It seems obvious, therefore, that the appeal focused on the very narrow criteria surrounding only what exactly is growing on the land now, and appeared to give no creedance to how those plants got there.
I still think that the wider issue of the illegal improvement should have been a factor, but if the legislation dosen't allow for that then someone at the Department of the environment needs to be looking at the act and considering an amendment to close this loophole in future.
Dave
In reply to Dave Musgrove:
Dave
This isn't the first 'odd' decision from the CA and they have said they are looking into the weaknesses of the Act with a view to reporting to Defra but with their own future uncertain I don't know how effective this will be. Meanwhile the decion will largely hinge on a vegetation assessment often made by non-ecologists. Its atunnel visioned, over pedantic and over-long process - I should know - I work for defra!
Dave
This isn't the first 'odd' decision from the CA and they have said they are looking into the weaknesses of the Act with a view to reporting to Defra but with their own future uncertain I don't know how effective this will be. Meanwhile the decion will largely hinge on a vegetation assessment often made by non-ecologists. Its atunnel visioned, over pedantic and over-long process - I should know - I work for defra!
In reply to Yorkspud:
I want to know why the landowner wasn't forced to reverse the act of her illegal 'land improvement' and return the tor back to moorland. If this had been enforced the classification for open land would seemingly have passed...
The actions of the landowner were to prevent classification of her land as open land under the CRoW, not solely to turn it to agriculture. She should have be prosecuted with this in mind.
I want to know why the landowner wasn't forced to reverse the act of her illegal 'land improvement' and return the tor back to moorland. If this had been enforced the classification for open land would seemingly have passed...
The actions of the landowner were to prevent classification of her land as open land under the CRoW, not solely to turn it to agriculture. She should have be prosecuted with this in mind.
In reply to Ben Stokes:
I'm sure everyone agrees its a right old mess - but now that we are in it how do we get out?
I'm no lawyer but I assume the CROW process as it currently stands has runs its course and there is no way back. Therefore I guess the simplest solution is for someone to enforce compulsory access - I guess thats the council or national park authority? How do we go about getting that? A mass trespass to raise awareness?
I'm sure everyone agrees its a right old mess - but now that we are in it how do we get out?
I'm no lawyer but I assume the CROW process as it currently stands has runs its course and there is no way back. Therefore I guess the simplest solution is for someone to enforce compulsory access - I guess thats the council or national park authority? How do we go about getting that? A mass trespass to raise awareness?
In reply to Ben Stokes:
I agree but unfortunately it looks as though we have two flawed and toothless bits of legislation. The Scots did it a lot better.
I agree but unfortunately it looks as though we have two flawed and toothless bits of legislation. The Scots did it a lot better.
In reply to Yorkspud:
I was thinking about how a landowner in Scotland could achieve the same effect. I suspect the simplest way would be to plough around the area in question in concentric circles.
> (In reply to Ben Stokes)
>
> I agree but unfortunately it looks as though we have two flawed and toothless bits of legislation. The Scots did it a lot better.
>
> I agree but unfortunately it looks as though we have two flawed and toothless bits of legislation. The Scots did it a lot better.
I was thinking about how a landowner in Scotland could achieve the same effect. I suspect the simplest way would be to plough around the area in question in concentric circles.
In reply to Dave Musgrove:
Dave If you have not seen the Inspectors Decision please email me directly and I can send it to you. email johnskinner@tinyworld.co.uk
I am the RA Access Officer and played some part in the Inquiry.
Dave If you have not seen the Inspectors Decision please email me directly and I can send it to you. email johnskinner@tinyworld.co.uk
I am the RA Access Officer and played some part in the Inquiry.
> (In reply to GuyK)
>
> Guy, Have you seen an actual transcript of the appeal hearing (if there is a requirement to keep one) or copies of papers submitted in support of the appeal, and/or the written decision of the appeals chairman? If not is it possible to apply for such under the Freedom of Information Act?
>
> There does seem to be an important principle at stake here and I think every effort should be made, if necessary by the BMCs legal advisors, to find out the full facts behind this decision before moving to the potential next step of applying for statutory access under some other NP order.
>
> Dave
>
> Guy, Have you seen an actual transcript of the appeal hearing (if there is a requirement to keep one) or copies of papers submitted in support of the appeal, and/or the written decision of the appeals chairman? If not is it possible to apply for such under the Freedom of Information Act?
>
> There does seem to be an important principle at stake here and I think every effort should be made, if necessary by the BMCs legal advisors, to find out the full facts behind this decision before moving to the potential next step of applying for statutory access under some other NP order.
>
> Dave
In reply to GuyK:
The problem that the Inspector had was that although the evidence generally suggested that the greater part of the field containing the tor was moorland vegetation it has to be OBVIOUSLY so (to the Inspector on visual inspection) and it was not obvious. But do not despair. Already RA have contacted the Dartmoor Park Authority who will consider other avenues for restoring public access.
The problem that the Inspector had was that although the evidence generally suggested that the greater part of the field containing the tor was moorland vegetation it has to be OBVIOUSLY so (to the Inspector on visual inspection) and it was not obvious. But do not despair. Already RA have contacted the Dartmoor Park Authority who will consider other avenues for restoring public access.
In reply to john skinner: Thanks John, I've now read it all as posted further up the thread.
I am satisfied that it appears that reasonable attention to detail was taken on the very narrow issue of what vegetation is growing on the land now. I'm just very surprised that no account seems to have been taken of the fact that the landowners had precipitated the vegetation change, and as I understand it, had been prosecuted for it. It seems bizarre and should be appealed against, on principle, if there is any possible avenue of appeal left open.
Dave
I am satisfied that it appears that reasonable attention to detail was taken on the very narrow issue of what vegetation is growing on the land now. I'm just very surprised that no account seems to have been taken of the fact that the landowners had precipitated the vegetation change, and as I understand it, had been prosecuted for it. It seems bizarre and should be appealed against, on principle, if there is any possible avenue of appeal left open.
Dave
In reply to john skinner:
You guys are amazing.
Some inconvenient facts:
1. The land is private property. No doubt one of two of you have private property also. Should others be given a right over it simply because they want it? Exactly how does your bullying language encourage any landowner to be co-operative and resonable?
2. There is no right of public access over the land. The CA mapped it incorrectly, as the inspector's own ecologist found. The vegetative cover was not "wholly or predominantly" MMHD, as specified by the land-grab legislation. Whatever the nature of the landowner, the law is the law. or are you simply going to obey the bits that allow you acces to other people's property, while ignoring anything else you don't like?
3. Contary to the libellous suggestion made by the BMC's statement, it is utterly untrue that the descion shows a loophole in the CROW Act. The recent infringement of the SSSI conditions (OLDs) was utterly irrelevent to the inspector's decision. Besides, to convert MMHD into improved ot semi-improved grassland would take a heck of a lot more than that - years of soluable nitrogen fertilizer, or ploughing and re-seeding, for example.
Who are you and the RA going to pick on next - an allotment holder?
You guys are amazing.
Some inconvenient facts:
1. The land is private property. No doubt one of two of you have private property also. Should others be given a right over it simply because they want it? Exactly how does your bullying language encourage any landowner to be co-operative and resonable?
2. There is no right of public access over the land. The CA mapped it incorrectly, as the inspector's own ecologist found. The vegetative cover was not "wholly or predominantly" MMHD, as specified by the land-grab legislation. Whatever the nature of the landowner, the law is the law. or are you simply going to obey the bits that allow you acces to other people's property, while ignoring anything else you don't like?
3. Contary to the libellous suggestion made by the BMC's statement, it is utterly untrue that the descion shows a loophole in the CROW Act. The recent infringement of the SSSI conditions (OLDs) was utterly irrelevent to the inspector's decision. Besides, to convert MMHD into improved ot semi-improved grassland would take a heck of a lot more than that - years of soluable nitrogen fertilizer, or ploughing and re-seeding, for example.
Who are you and the RA going to pick on next - an allotment holder?
In reply to pinkfoot:
The BMC's comments are not libellous and there is a definite problem here with the CROW act - one of many. The landowner WAS prosecuted under EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment regulations (not SSSI condition - Vixen Tor itself is not in a SSSI) for improving unimproved grassland after the introduction of the legislation. The improvement was done to make the land ineligible for CROW and it was mapped on previously assessed vegetational characteristics. The inspectors did not, because of weaknesses in the law, take this deliberate action into account and had to rule against it being moor-like on a very low error margin, possibly caused by that deliberate improvement. The message? Fertilise your unimproved grassland and you may get an EIA fine but you could get it excluded from CROW - a bad precedent which could lead to loss of access RIGHTS and damage unimproved grass/moorland swards/mosaics.
I don't neccessarily hold with mass tresspass etc - probably wont achieve much here but the decsion process was deeply flawed.
The BMC's comments are not libellous and there is a definite problem here with the CROW act - one of many. The landowner WAS prosecuted under EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment regulations (not SSSI condition - Vixen Tor itself is not in a SSSI) for improving unimproved grassland after the introduction of the legislation. The improvement was done to make the land ineligible for CROW and it was mapped on previously assessed vegetational characteristics. The inspectors did not, because of weaknesses in the law, take this deliberate action into account and had to rule against it being moor-like on a very low error margin, possibly caused by that deliberate improvement. The message? Fertilise your unimproved grassland and you may get an EIA fine but you could get it excluded from CROW - a bad precedent which could lead to loss of access RIGHTS and damage unimproved grass/moorland swards/mosaics.
I don't neccessarily hold with mass tresspass etc - probably wont achieve much here but the decsion process was deeply flawed.
I have always been facinated by peoples reactions when they dont get something they want and dont feel its "fair" but never want to consider that it might be lawful.
However, I hope the NP enforce access because the land owner has played a shitty trick and obvioulsey doesnt have the best interests at heart of the land in question if shes prepared to try and turn it into improved pasture to stop people climbing on the rocks. That way everythings nice and legal.
Paranoid batty woman, still believing the countryside is hers when it really belongs to all of us (with responsibilities)and comparing it to someones garden and saying how would you like people traipsing all over it isnt really a valid comparison.
However, I hope the NP enforce access because the land owner has played a shitty trick and obvioulsey doesnt have the best interests at heart of the land in question if shes prepared to try and turn it into improved pasture to stop people climbing on the rocks. That way everythings nice and legal.
Paranoid batty woman, still believing the countryside is hers when it really belongs to all of us (with responsibilities)and comparing it to someones garden and saying how would you like people traipsing all over it isnt really a valid comparison.
In reply to pinkfoot:
>The vegetative cover was not "wholly or predominantly" MMHD,
Of course seaweed naturally occurs on MMHD
>as specified by the land-grab legislation.
Most of designated CA was land grabbed off the nation. CA has rightly corrected access whilst remaining lawful.
>Besides, to convert MMHD into improved ot semi-improved grassland would take a heck of a lot more than that - years of soluable nitrogen fertilizer, or ploughing and re-seeding, for example.
This is what is so frustrating. You're right and the inspector cannot have looked hard enough or because of the 'law' was not able to. The fact that the land owner was prosecuted and found guilty of altering this land should most certainly have been a major concideration.
The land owner should not simply have been prosecuted but should have been made to reinstate the land at full cost.
> Some inconvenient facts:
>
> 1. The land is private property.
So is most CA designated land and it remains so. What has changed is a 'controlled' access right to use open land within the frame work of the law.
>
> 1. The land is private property.
> 2. There is no right of public access over the land.
CA obviously gave this and it is exactly what the land owner objects to.
>The vegetative cover was not "wholly or predominantly" MMHD,
Of course seaweed naturally occurs on MMHD
>as specified by the land-grab legislation.
Most of designated CA was land grabbed off the nation. CA has rightly corrected access whilst remaining lawful.
> 3. Contary to the libellous suggestion made by the BMC's statement,
Rubbish
>Besides, to convert MMHD into improved ot semi-improved grassland would take a heck of a lot more than that - years of soluable nitrogen fertilizer, or ploughing and re-seeding, for example.
This is what is so frustrating. You're right and the inspector cannot have looked hard enough or because of the 'law' was not able to. The fact that the land owner was prosecuted and found guilty of altering this land should most certainly have been a major concideration.
The land owner should not simply have been prosecuted but should have been made to reinstate the land at full cost.
> Who are you and the RA going to pick on next - an allotment holder?
Weak comment!
In reply to pinkfoot:
Now fogive me if I am wrong, as I have not followed the case and have only picked up on what others have said.
You state that it would take many years of soluable nitrogen fertilizer or similar to convert the land into improved or semi-improved grassland, if this is the case then how can she have been successfully prosecuted for illegally improving the land? Which is what I understand has happened. If she has been found guilty then the land must have been improved.
I'm not trying to argue for or against the result just trying to point out some logic contrary to your point.
> 3. Contary to the libellous suggestion made by the BMC's statement, it is utterly untrue that the descion shows a loophole in the CROW Act. The recent infringement of the SSSI conditions (OLDs) was utterly irrelevent to the inspector's decision. Besides, to convert MMHD into improved ot semi-improved grassland would take a heck of a lot more than that - years of soluable nitrogen fertilizer, or ploughing and re-seeding, for example.
Now fogive me if I am wrong, as I have not followed the case and have only picked up on what others have said.
You state that it would take many years of soluable nitrogen fertilizer or similar to convert the land into improved or semi-improved grassland, if this is the case then how can she have been successfully prosecuted for illegally improving the land? Which is what I understand has happened. If she has been found guilty then the land must have been improved.
I'm not trying to argue for or against the result just trying to point out some logic contrary to your point.
In reply to DTE:
She wasn't. I (incidentally, I don't know her or have any brief for her, but I am a hill farmer and I understand the SSSI bureacracy). My understanding is that she was prosecuted for breaching her SSSI conditions. These conditions are called Operations Likely to Damage (OLDs). There can be zillions of them, imposed at will by the quangocrats; there are so many that you might not even know which ones apply to which field. And event he, interpretations can vary according to individual quangocrats. The fact is that OLDs are probably being breached (inadvertantly or otherwise) across the country on a daily basis.
In this instance, as far as I can tell, she applied manure to a field without gaining prior approval, and thus breached an OLD which specifies that no form of fertiliser be applied without approval from EN. This breach of an OLD allowed the Ramblers to crow (9!) about "damage". Defra, no doubt under PC pressure from the usual suspects, then took the unusual step of pressing a prosecution - followed by the even more unusual step of issuing a pres release to gloat about its good work.
(Interestingly, if a trespassing rambler crapped in the same field, that too could technicaly be a breach of the very same OLD...!)
As far as I can see, there I no evidence whatsover that the land has actually been "improved" in terms of vegetative cover by this single breach. (As a matter of interest, some of my management agreement with EN actually specifiies the use of manure as opposed to soluble nitrogen-based fertiliser; I tend to avoid the latter anyway for all sorts of ecological reasons). Indeed, did this breach of OLD even relate to Field Seven, the portion of land at the heart of this row? Or was it somewhwere else on the farm? Who said she was trying to use "improvement" to avoid access land classification - the Ramblers? Perhaps somebody could tell us.
The point about soluble nitrogen-based fert is that it tends to accelerate growth of certain grasses - notably perennial rye grass. A preponderance of ryegrass in the sward tends to be count as "improvement" in farming terminiology.
But without rotavating and re-seeding, the alteration of existing sward composition towards ryegrass through fertilizing takes many, many growing seasons. And if you stop, it tends to revert.
Yet the current owner has only had the land for what - three years? The fact is that the ground cover at the time when the CA mapped the area had been achieved by the grazing/managment reime over many decades, if not longer. Indeed, they probably mapped the area before an breach of OLD - perhaps before she even owned it!
In some instances, the historical use of solble nitrogen fert can be cited as evidence of management for improvement in relation to CROW, but that wasn't the case here. In this instance, the decision was made on the basis of vergetative cover.
Reading the inspector's report, it becomes obvious that the BMC itself cocked-up. Its own ecological survey conflicted with that carried out by the RA, which musty have cast doubt on the access lobby's case. More importantly, it was deemed to be unreliable because it got the boundaries wrong, thereby making a nonsense of the data. As for the RA survey, that showed unimproved cover (ie qualifying for MMHD) over just 55.2% of the field in question. And that wrongly included an area of scattered hawthorn on improved or semi-improved grasland (ISIG).
Now, whatever the true extent of appropriate cover, the inspector's own ecologist thought the balance between MMHD and ISIG was probably just 5 %. Definitely not "wholly" MMH, therefore, and arguably not "predominantly" either. Hence it cannot be classified as access land.
I gather that a precise definition of "predominantly" is yet to be clarified, but to date had been held to be between two thirds (66.6%) and three quarters (75 %). So even accepting the RA survey at face value (and the inspector doesn't) Field 7 still fails to reach the "predmoninantly" MMHD qualification by a long way.
She wasn't. I (incidentally, I don't know her or have any brief for her, but I am a hill farmer and I understand the SSSI bureacracy). My understanding is that she was prosecuted for breaching her SSSI conditions. These conditions are called Operations Likely to Damage (OLDs). There can be zillions of them, imposed at will by the quangocrats; there are so many that you might not even know which ones apply to which field. And event he, interpretations can vary according to individual quangocrats. The fact is that OLDs are probably being breached (inadvertantly or otherwise) across the country on a daily basis.
In this instance, as far as I can tell, she applied manure to a field without gaining prior approval, and thus breached an OLD which specifies that no form of fertiliser be applied without approval from EN. This breach of an OLD allowed the Ramblers to crow (9!) about "damage". Defra, no doubt under PC pressure from the usual suspects, then took the unusual step of pressing a prosecution - followed by the even more unusual step of issuing a pres release to gloat about its good work.
(Interestingly, if a trespassing rambler crapped in the same field, that too could technicaly be a breach of the very same OLD...!)
As far as I can see, there I no evidence whatsover that the land has actually been "improved" in terms of vegetative cover by this single breach. (As a matter of interest, some of my management agreement with EN actually specifiies the use of manure as opposed to soluble nitrogen-based fertiliser; I tend to avoid the latter anyway for all sorts of ecological reasons). Indeed, did this breach of OLD even relate to Field Seven, the portion of land at the heart of this row? Or was it somewhwere else on the farm? Who said she was trying to use "improvement" to avoid access land classification - the Ramblers? Perhaps somebody could tell us.
The point about soluble nitrogen-based fert is that it tends to accelerate growth of certain grasses - notably perennial rye grass. A preponderance of ryegrass in the sward tends to be count as "improvement" in farming terminiology.
But without rotavating and re-seeding, the alteration of existing sward composition towards ryegrass through fertilizing takes many, many growing seasons. And if you stop, it tends to revert.
Yet the current owner has only had the land for what - three years? The fact is that the ground cover at the time when the CA mapped the area had been achieved by the grazing/managment reime over many decades, if not longer. Indeed, they probably mapped the area before an breach of OLD - perhaps before she even owned it!
In some instances, the historical use of solble nitrogen fert can be cited as evidence of management for improvement in relation to CROW, but that wasn't the case here. In this instance, the decision was made on the basis of vergetative cover.
Reading the inspector's report, it becomes obvious that the BMC itself cocked-up. Its own ecological survey conflicted with that carried out by the RA, which musty have cast doubt on the access lobby's case. More importantly, it was deemed to be unreliable because it got the boundaries wrong, thereby making a nonsense of the data. As for the RA survey, that showed unimproved cover (ie qualifying for MMHD) over just 55.2% of the field in question. And that wrongly included an area of scattered hawthorn on improved or semi-improved grasland (ISIG).
Now, whatever the true extent of appropriate cover, the inspector's own ecologist thought the balance between MMHD and ISIG was probably just 5 %. Definitely not "wholly" MMH, therefore, and arguably not "predominantly" either. Hence it cannot be classified as access land.
I gather that a precise definition of "predominantly" is yet to be clarified, but to date had been held to be between two thirds (66.6%) and three quarters (75 %). So even accepting the RA survey at face value (and the inspector doesn't) Field 7 still fails to reach the "predmoninantly" MMHD qualification by a long way.
In reply to pinkfoot:
Whoops! Posted the above before reading the latest rantings of the land-grab fraternity. If it wasn't a breach of an OLD, then please ignore my observations on that specific issue; but the main point remains - no way did spreading seaweed (favoured by organic famers, incidentally) modify the land cover to any extent reelavnt to the appeal. The fact is that the CA got it wrong - as they usually do, judging by the reord of recent CROW Act appeals.
The BMC has made an almighty cock-up by libelling the farmer. For those of you who don't know much about defamation, allow me to elcudate: the BMC accused the farmer of deliberatly altering ("damaging") a piece of land in order to escape it being properly classified as access land. This is clarly a defamatory statement. The BMC could get away with it if it was true. But is it? Nope.
Anybody who knows anything about the land knows you can't change the vegetative cover rapidly with a few dollops of seaweed (see my earlier post). So, the BMC's statment is both defamatory and demonstrably untrue. It was based on a desire to show the farmer in a bad light - hence it is malicious in the legal sense. It identified the farmer as an individual. It was in permanent form - ie writing. And it was definietly issued by the BMC. So, it fits every single test of libel.
If I were you, BMC, I'd retract the statement asap.
And while you're about it, you might also retract the nasty incitement to unlawful trespass.
There is no lawful access to Vixen Tor - the appropriate authority has ruiled that out. And the message for landowners is clear - don't ever, ever give general permission to anybody to go onto your land, because they will then start demanding "rights" and thretening you if they don't get their way.
Whoops! Posted the above before reading the latest rantings of the land-grab fraternity. If it wasn't a breach of an OLD, then please ignore my observations on that specific issue; but the main point remains - no way did spreading seaweed (favoured by organic famers, incidentally) modify the land cover to any extent reelavnt to the appeal. The fact is that the CA got it wrong - as they usually do, judging by the reord of recent CROW Act appeals.
The BMC has made an almighty cock-up by libelling the farmer. For those of you who don't know much about defamation, allow me to elcudate: the BMC accused the farmer of deliberatly altering ("damaging") a piece of land in order to escape it being properly classified as access land. This is clarly a defamatory statement. The BMC could get away with it if it was true. But is it? Nope.
Anybody who knows anything about the land knows you can't change the vegetative cover rapidly with a few dollops of seaweed (see my earlier post). So, the BMC's statment is both defamatory and demonstrably untrue. It was based on a desire to show the farmer in a bad light - hence it is malicious in the legal sense. It identified the farmer as an individual. It was in permanent form - ie writing. And it was definietly issued by the BMC. So, it fits every single test of libel.
If I were you, BMC, I'd retract the statement asap.
And while you're about it, you might also retract the nasty incitement to unlawful trespass.
There is no lawful access to Vixen Tor - the appropriate authority has ruiled that out. And the message for landowners is clear - don't ever, ever give general permission to anybody to go onto your land, because they will then start demanding "rights" and thretening you if they don't get their way.
In reply to pinkfoot:
Just checked with Defra. The farmer was prosecuted for a paperwork technicality in relation to environmental impact regulations. She didn't ask permission before applying fertilizer (calcified seaweed and manure, as favoured by the environmental lobby) and clearing some scrub (an operation often sponsored by enironmental agencies, and one that actually makes land more likely to be considered "open country") on four fields near Vixen Tor.
There is no way that this action could have had a significant impact on Field Seven's vegetation for the purposes of classification - even if that had been the intention (which, given the scrub clearance, seems rather bizarre).
Will the British Mugabe Council now apologise for A) cocking up its evidence to the enquiry (see eralier post); B) libelling an identified individual; C) inciting unlawful trespass (or worse)?
Just checked with Defra. The farmer was prosecuted for a paperwork technicality in relation to environmental impact regulations. She didn't ask permission before applying fertilizer (calcified seaweed and manure, as favoured by the environmental lobby) and clearing some scrub (an operation often sponsored by enironmental agencies, and one that actually makes land more likely to be considered "open country") on four fields near Vixen Tor.
There is no way that this action could have had a significant impact on Field Seven's vegetation for the purposes of classification - even if that had been the intention (which, given the scrub clearance, seems rather bizarre).
Will the British Mugabe Council now apologise for A) cocking up its evidence to the enquiry (see eralier post); B) libelling an identified individual; C) inciting unlawful trespass (or worse)?
In reply to pinkfoot:
Not a paperwork techicality. As one of the only people to be prosecuted for EIA trangressions she cleraly flouted the 'rules' and the effect of calcified seaweed and farmyard manure is to improve grassland enabling agricultural grass species to outcompete 'rougher' grass species. I do concede however that that action on its own over 2 yers or less would have little immediate effect but would encourage more grass growth as opposed to dwarf shrub.
ps I work for defra and have collected EIA 'evidence'
Not a paperwork techicality. As one of the only people to be prosecuted for EIA trangressions she cleraly flouted the 'rules' and the effect of calcified seaweed and farmyard manure is to improve grassland enabling agricultural grass species to outcompete 'rougher' grass species. I do concede however that that action on its own over 2 yers or less would have little immediate effect but would encourage more grass growth as opposed to dwarf shrub.
ps I work for defra and have collected EIA 'evidence'
In reply to Yorkspud:
If you work for defra, then you and I will never agree about paperwork! The reson she is "one of the only people" to be proscted is partly because the regulations in question only took effect in 2002.
As you seem to agree, this operation couldn't have had any immediate affect. Indeed, I can assure you it wouldn't have had much affect for several growing seasons (depending on a variety of factors.) Yet the BMC accuses her of "changing a significant proportion of the field from open moorland habitat to semi-improved pasture." What complete and utter tosh!
Given the nature of the inspector's findings, the BMC's scare-story is unjustified and factually inaccurate. I note that they even go out of their way to make sure that every nutter knows exactly where she lives!
Do decent climbers really want to be associated with such bully-boy tactics?
If you work for defra, then you and I will never agree about paperwork! The reson she is "one of the only people" to be proscted is partly because the regulations in question only took effect in 2002.
As you seem to agree, this operation couldn't have had any immediate affect. Indeed, I can assure you it wouldn't have had much affect for several growing seasons (depending on a variety of factors.) Yet the BMC accuses her of "changing a significant proportion of the field from open moorland habitat to semi-improved pasture." What complete and utter tosh!
Given the nature of the inspector's findings, the BMC's scare-story is unjustified and factually inaccurate. I note that they even go out of their way to make sure that every nutter knows exactly where she lives!
Do decent climbers really want to be associated with such bully-boy tactics?
In reply to Yorkspud:
As a completely ignorant bystander, wouldn't the "removal of scrub" have a significant and immediate affect on the amount of land classed as MMHD?
> (In reply to pinkfoot)
>
> I do concede however that that action on its own over 2 yers or less would have little immediate effect but would encourage more grass growth as opposed to dwarf shrub.
>
>
> I do concede however that that action on its own over 2 yers or less would have little immediate effect but would encourage more grass growth as opposed to dwarf shrub.
>
As a completely ignorant bystander, wouldn't the "removal of scrub" have a significant and immediate affect on the amount of land classed as MMHD?
In reply to pinkfoot:
>I note that they even go out of their way to make sure that every nutter knows exactly where she lives!
You're getting hysterical.
>I note that they even go out of their way to make sure that every nutter knows exactly where she lives!
You're getting hysterical.
In reply to pinkfoot:
I find it interesting that you post so self assuredly, and at some considerable length and in doing so make a number of incorrect statements, and then follow up with a post suggesting that others are ranting. Are there any other specific issues upon which you have commented that we should choose to ignore?
Not withstanding, I read your comments with interest.
However, I still don't really understand why the Owner wants to restrict public access to such a valuable resource.
> (In reply to pinkfoot)
>
> Whoops! Posted the above before reading the latest rantings of the land-grab fraternity. If it wasn't a breach of an OLD, then please ignore my observations on that specific issue;
>
> Whoops! Posted the above before reading the latest rantings of the land-grab fraternity. If it wasn't a breach of an OLD, then please ignore my observations on that specific issue;
I find it interesting that you post so self assuredly, and at some considerable length and in doing so make a number of incorrect statements, and then follow up with a post suggesting that others are ranting. Are there any other specific issues upon which you have commented that we should choose to ignore?
Not withstanding, I read your comments with interest.
However, I still don't really understand why the Owner wants to restrict public access to such a valuable resource.
In reply to pinkfoot:
Believe me I HATE paperwork. There have been a good numnber of investigations but its difficult to proove damage under EIA regs because if a field has been ploughed the evidence has gone as there often isn't an exisiting survey. In this case it was known what the vegetation was like before and it was classified as the type not to be improved - hence the prosecution.
The inspectors are not highly trained ecologists and the focus on MMHD percentages is a very limited critereum for these decisions to be made on. But hey - thats government admin.
Believe me I HATE paperwork. There have been a good numnber of investigations but its difficult to proove damage under EIA regs because if a field has been ploughed the evidence has gone as there often isn't an exisiting survey. In this case it was known what the vegetation was like before and it was classified as the type not to be improved - hence the prosecution.
The inspectors are not highly trained ecologists and the focus on MMHD percentages is a very limited critereum for these decisions to be made on. But hey - thats government admin.
In reply to Yorkspud: I dont understand why the land owner cleared and fertalised this area of land if not to facilitate a change of use ? For the hell of it ?
In reply to Matt Rees:
I did preface many of my specific comments with "I understand". But in any case, all the comments I made in regards to OLDs apply equally to EIA regulations. The susntive points I made remain unaltered. nd they sugegst that the BMC's claims are factually incorrect, deeply misleading and libellous. I note that nobody from the BMC has yet appeared on this forum.
The "ranting" refers to those who advocate mass trespass, copying the tactics of animal righs protestors, the appropriation of private property, etc. Wouldn't you call that sort of stuff ranting?
I don't know exactly why the farmer wants to restrict public access, but it is, after all her private property. Perhaps she wants to pass it on to her children without its value being degarded by public access. Perhaps she doesn't want her livestock distured by thoughtless members of the public. Perhaps she wants to keep the place quiet for wildlife. Perhaps she wants payment. Perhaps she wants a say in how her private property is used by strangers. Perhaps she's worried about vandalism, or litter, or people being aggressive to her when she's on her own checking the sheep. Perhaps she simply wants somebody to have the courtesy of asking before using her private property for their own recreatiobn. I just don't know. But if you don't accept the concept of private property, then there isn't much point in debating this. I just hope all land-grabbers have written wills leaving all their wordly goods to the taxman, rather than their families. Otherwise they'd be hyporocites, wouldn't they?
Leaving that aside, anybody on private land by invitation is owed a higher duty of care than otherwise, and can sue is they harm themseleves.
Under the right to roam, the liability is limited to injuries aused by man-made objects - including fences, walls, etc. But it is still there, and we all know we're in an increasingly litigious society.
In a recent case reported in The Times, a farmer was successfully sued by a motorcyclist after a rambler left a gate open. A young cow wandered through the open gate and was involved in a collision with the motorcyclist, who was
on a public road. The judge held that the farmer could have forerseen that some rambler would leave the gate open (because we all know that they do) and hadn't taken sufficient precuations. Hence he was liable, even though the rambler was on a public footpath and to lock or otherwise obstruct that footpath at the gate would have been a criminal offence.
I did preface many of my specific comments with "I understand". But in any case, all the comments I made in regards to OLDs apply equally to EIA regulations. The susntive points I made remain unaltered. nd they sugegst that the BMC's claims are factually incorrect, deeply misleading and libellous. I note that nobody from the BMC has yet appeared on this forum.
The "ranting" refers to those who advocate mass trespass, copying the tactics of animal righs protestors, the appropriation of private property, etc. Wouldn't you call that sort of stuff ranting?
I don't know exactly why the farmer wants to restrict public access, but it is, after all her private property. Perhaps she wants to pass it on to her children without its value being degarded by public access. Perhaps she doesn't want her livestock distured by thoughtless members of the public. Perhaps she wants to keep the place quiet for wildlife. Perhaps she wants payment. Perhaps she wants a say in how her private property is used by strangers. Perhaps she's worried about vandalism, or litter, or people being aggressive to her when she's on her own checking the sheep. Perhaps she simply wants somebody to have the courtesy of asking before using her private property for their own recreatiobn. I just don't know. But if you don't accept the concept of private property, then there isn't much point in debating this. I just hope all land-grabbers have written wills leaving all their wordly goods to the taxman, rather than their families. Otherwise they'd be hyporocites, wouldn't they?
Leaving that aside, anybody on private land by invitation is owed a higher duty of care than otherwise, and can sue is they harm themseleves.
Under the right to roam, the liability is limited to injuries aused by man-made objects - including fences, walls, etc. But it is still there, and we all know we're in an increasingly litigious society.
In a recent case reported in The Times, a farmer was successfully sued by a motorcyclist after a rambler left a gate open. A young cow wandered through the open gate and was involved in a collision with the motorcyclist, who was
on a public road. The judge held that the farmer could have forerseen that some rambler would leave the gate open (because we all know that they do) and hadn't taken sufficient precuations. Hence he was liable, even though the rambler was on a public footpath and to lock or otherwise obstruct that footpath at the gate would have been a criminal offence.
In reply to pinkfoot:
I'd call renaming the BMC the "British Mugabe Council" ranting.
Thank god the Scottish Parliament had no sympathy for this viewpoint when they framed and introduced the new Land Access legislation north of the border. If there was ONE benefit from devolution, this would be it.
> The "ranting" refers to those who advocate mass trespass, copying the tactics of animal righs protestors, the appropriation of private property, etc. Wouldn't you call that sort of stuff ranting?
>
>
I'd call renaming the BMC the "British Mugabe Council" ranting.
> I don't know exactly why the farmer wants to restrict public access, but it is, after all her private property. Perhaps she wants to pass it on to her children without its value being degarded by public access. Perhaps she doesn't want her livestock distured by thoughtless members of the public. Perhaps she wants to keep the place quiet for wildlife. Perhaps she wants payment. Perhaps she wants a say in how her private property is used by strangers. Perhaps she's worried about vandalism, or litter, or people being aggressive to her when she's on her own checking the sheep. Perhaps she simply wants somebody to have the courtesy of asking before using her private property for their own recreatiobn. I just don't know. But if you don't accept the concept of private property, then there isn't much point in debating this.
>
>
Thank god the Scottish Parliament had no sympathy for this viewpoint when they framed and introduced the new Land Access legislation north of the border. If there was ONE benefit from devolution, this would be it.
In reply to pinkfoot:
Just to address a few points made by others:
Dominion - do your approave of putting a woman's address on a website in these circumstances? Come on, then; let's have your full address here!
Yorkspud - just to say the inspector had his own eclogist, janet Forbes BSc MSc MLI AIEMA, a qualified botanist, eclogist and member of the Landscape Institute, appointed by the Secretary of State. her report is on the internet.
Others Re: change of use and scrub clearance: scrub clearance would actually tend to make an area more likely to be classified as open country (MMHD) and hence liable to classification as access land! As for change of use, the puprose of the sort of fertilising carried out in this case (very mild, long-acting, organic materials) is generally to get a better forage crop - ie more dry material equivalent for the the livestock to eat - rather than to change the use n any material sense.
Just to address a few points made by others:
Dominion - do your approave of putting a woman's address on a website in these circumstances? Come on, then; let's have your full address here!
Yorkspud - just to say the inspector had his own eclogist, janet Forbes BSc MSc MLI AIEMA, a qualified botanist, eclogist and member of the Landscape Institute, appointed by the Secretary of State. her report is on the internet.
Others Re: change of use and scrub clearance: scrub clearance would actually tend to make an area more likely to be classified as open country (MMHD) and hence liable to classification as access land! As for change of use, the puprose of the sort of fertilising carried out in this case (very mild, long-acting, organic materials) is generally to get a better forage crop - ie more dry material equivalent for the the livestock to eat - rather than to change the use n any material sense.
In reply to pinkfoot:
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/3551776.stm
Her address is already in the public domain. It took less that 3 minutes to find it.
> Dominion - do your approave of putting a woman's address on a website in these circumstances? Come on, then; let's have your full address here!
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/3551776.stm
Her address is already in the public domain. It took less that 3 minutes to find it.
In reply to Dominion:
You're avoiding the question. Come on, let's have your full details, and I'll post them - togther with a press release distorting your views,making you out to be hugely anti-farmer, and inviting readers to "make their own decision about whether to visit Dominion's property."
(Just to clarify - I'm taking the mick: I wouldn't do any such thing! Just making a point).
You're avoiding the question. Come on, let's have your full details, and I'll post them - togther with a press release distorting your views,making you out to be hugely anti-farmer, and inviting readers to "make their own decision about whether to visit Dominion's property."
(Just to clarify - I'm taking the mick: I wouldn't do any such thing! Just making a point).
Looking at this as both a farmer and climber/walker and studying the documents, maps and ariel photo's of the area, it would appear that this is a somewhat borderline case the land obviously is or has been enclosed at some point in the past and therefore it possibly cannot be obviously classed as open country. Bear in mind that any initial decision would most likely have been made on mapping/photography and landowners allowed to appeal if they felt the need. After the appeal a judgement would I guess have been made on vegetation cover, if as stated the only "improvement" made was recent applications of seaweed/manure this is unlikely to have caused any major short term swing in dominant vegetation. I think the sad fact is that this is a very borderline case under CROW, a breach of regs that in all honesty was pretty unlikely to affect the outcome of the inquiry cannot really be used to swing a judgement againest the landowner, as access and environment rules are 2 different areas of legislation.
The major problem is I guess that there is a crag in the field in question and it is therefore more than just a lost "rambling" opportunity. Given that the balance regarding a favourable ruling under CROW is pretty fine perhaps it is time to stop chasing this particular red herring and look to a permissive access agreement, maybe under the new HLS environment scheme when the final details are announced.
Just a few thoughts from someone with a foot in both camps so please go easy with the abuse
Regards
Tim Jones
The major problem is I guess that there is a crag in the field in question and it is therefore more than just a lost "rambling" opportunity. Given that the balance regarding a favourable ruling under CROW is pretty fine perhaps it is time to stop chasing this particular red herring and look to a permissive access agreement, maybe under the new HLS environment scheme when the final details are announced.
Just a few thoughts from someone with a foot in both camps so please go easy with the abuse
Regards
Tim Jones
In reply to timjones:
What you say sounds like commonsense to me.
But how can the BMC explain its appalling propaganda press release? I shall be interested to see in due course.
Anyway, gotta - stock to feed.
What you say sounds like commonsense to me.
But how can the BMC explain its appalling propaganda press release? I shall be interested to see in due course.
Anyway, gotta - stock to feed.
In reply to pinkfoot: In a recent case reported in The Times, a farmer was successfully sued by a motorcyclist after a rambler left a gate open. A young cow wandered through the open gate and was involved in a collision with the motorcyclist, who was
on a public road. The judge held that the farmer could have forerseen that some rambler would leave the gate open (because we all know that they do) and hadn't taken sufficient precuations. Hence he was liable, even though the rambler was on a public footpath and to lock or otherwise obstruct that footpath at the gate would have been a criminal offence.
.........................
Thats what styles are for - most footpaths have styles where livestock are?
on a public road. The judge held that the farmer could have forerseen that some rambler would leave the gate open (because we all know that they do) and hadn't taken sufficient precuations. Hence he was liable, even though the rambler was on a public footpath and to lock or otherwise obstruct that footpath at the gate would have been a criminal offence.
.........................
Thats what styles are for - most footpaths have styles where livestock are?
In reply to timjones:
It looks as though the "Dartmoor National Park Authority is to re-open it by forcing Mrs Alford to allow access or by compulsory purchase."
according to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4315603.stm
It looks as though the "Dartmoor National Park Authority is to re-open it by forcing Mrs Alford to allow access or by compulsory purchase."
according to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4315603.stm
In reply to Stu Tyrrell:
Have to be a big style (sic) to replace a 5 bar gate, and could be tricky getting a tractor and trailer over one.
> Thats what styles are for - most footpaths have styles where livestock are?
Have to be a big style (sic) to replace a 5 bar gate, and could be tricky getting a tractor and trailer over one.
In reply to Ridge:
Lots of gates I've seen have a weight on a string system, that pulls the gate shut. It's not hard to do, and presumably that is the line that the judge took - although it was obviously the idiot who left the gate open who was directly to blame...
Lots of gates I've seen have a weight on a string system, that pulls the gate shut. It's not hard to do, and presumably that is the line that the judge took - although it was obviously the idiot who left the gate open who was directly to blame...
In reply to pinkfoot:
The Planning Inspectorate put the full address of Vixen Tor farm including the postcode on their web site announcement of the Public Inquiry: http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/access/appeals/southwest/NOI2891.ht... Plug that postcode in to multimap and you could walk right up to the land owner's front door. (The fact that the land owner is a woman is really neither here nor there.)
If you are really interested in an answer to that question then I suggest you contact one or other of the BMC representatives whose names and telephone numbers are given in the BMC press release, as reproduced in the original post. AFAIK no contributor to this thread has claimed to represent the BMC's official views, so I'm not sure you're going to get the answer you seek here.
> do your approave of putting a woman's address on a website in these circumstances?
The Planning Inspectorate put the full address of Vixen Tor farm including the postcode on their web site announcement of the Public Inquiry: http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/access/appeals/southwest/NOI2891.ht... Plug that postcode in to multimap and you could walk right up to the land owner's front door. (The fact that the land owner is a woman is really neither here nor there.)
> But how can the BMC explain its appalling propaganda press release? I shall be interested to see in due course.
If you are really interested in an answer to that question then I suggest you contact one or other of the BMC representatives whose names and telephone numbers are given in the BMC press release, as reproduced in the original post. AFAIK no contributor to this thread has claimed to represent the BMC's official views, so I'm not sure you're going to get the answer you seek here.
In reply to pinkfoot:
True - but the criteria are still too narrow. The appeals in Upper North West usually just had the inspector.
True - but the criteria are still too narrow. The appeals in Upper North West usually just had the inspector.
In reply to GuyK: Dartmoor National Park Authority will ask owner to voluntrarily allow access, if they refuse, it will be imposed by order or carry out a compulsory purchase of the tor, which should reopen by the end of the year.
From Summit 37 news stop press!
Stu
From Summit 37 news stop press!
Stu
In reply to GuyK:
Do you think trespassing will just make any potential for access more difficult to obtain ?
Mary Alford delibrately applied seaweed etc to "improve the land" but in reality this has not changed the unimproved nature of the grassland in any respect with regard to its species content. She knowingly set a trap for DEFRA and was happy to be prosecuted, by their very action they have changed the definiton of the land.
Do you think trespassing will just make any potential for access more difficult to obtain ?
Mary Alford delibrately applied seaweed etc to "improve the land" but in reality this has not changed the unimproved nature of the grassland in any respect with regard to its species content. She knowingly set a trap for DEFRA and was happy to be prosecuted, by their very action they have changed the definiton of the land.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...