This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The PI is now over and I have just received a letter from the Planning Inspectorate with the following sentence: "The Inspector is minded to disregard the Ramblers' Association statement of case as they (RA) are taking a neutral stance."
I phoned the Inspectorate for clarification on this and the gist is that the RA have done a U turn and withdrawn some of their evidence as, apparently, it was contradicted by documentary evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, The Alford family.
On the face of it this must compromise the Devon County Council and RA's case, and therefore the possibility of a RoW through the Vixen Tor enclosure. However, the evidence of historic use given by myself, Dave Turnbull, Frank Cannings and others did not form part of the RA's submission. We took the witness box as independents, and our evidence will be considered as such by the Inspector when making his decision.
So what does this all mean as regards future access for climbing?
Very hard to say. If the footpath is designated there will still be no access to the Tor itself and it basically becomes an irrelevance as far as climbing is concerned. If the Alfords win, all public access into the VT Enclosure will be denied.
That is not necessarily the end of the story because there are various forms of appeal both in the High Court and/or a Judicial Review of the Inspector's decision. As an individual I can take this case to the High Court or demand a judicial review. It might even help our case as climbers (as opposed to walkers/picnickers etc) if the Inquiry decision favours the Alfords, allowing the option of an appeal.
Whether or not the BMC can afford the considerable cost of any future appeal is a big question; Vixen Tor, at the end of the day, is not the most popular crag in the UK. However, thin ends of wedges seem to be a feature of most crag access issues, and to my mind this is very much the case on Vixen Tor. Most of our British crags are privately owned, which leaves us as a climbing community increasingly vulnerable to the whims of landowners.
The permanent closure of VT would set an unfortunate precedent that could have major consequences for us all far beyond a relatively insignificant lump of granite on Dartmoor.
Normally through the good offices of the BMC and their local access volunteers negotiations often lead to a reasonably satisfactory conclusion such as at Hoghton Quarry. What we have here is a much more difficult situation where an intractable and hostile landowner can, given enough financial support, pursue their case for keeping out the public for as long as it takes.
If I'm right in my assumption that the VT issue may well present a very real long term threat to open access to crags up and down the country, (and remember we climb in an increasingly litigious and health and safety overkill age), then co-ordinated tightly focused action is required now.
The climbing community should be able to afford to call on top class legal counsel: Both DCC and the RA had legal representation at the Inquiry. Climbing is a legitimate and increasingly popular activity; in the past we as a community have shown willingness to work with other organizations such as the RSPB, to share the crags and do our best to minimize our impact.
I do feel strongly that we now need to acquire some real teeth and not rely on other bodies to fight for us. In this case the County Council, the Dartmoor National Park Authority and The RA have all backed off leaving us stranded. Mass trespass or climb-ins won't work, friendly negotiation won't work, but the law might well come down on our side if we can find the means to challenge it, and that has to be the next stage. I am prepared to do this as an individual, because I know from personal experience that 50 years ago I and many others were able to walk and climb freely at Vixen Tor. Is there anyone out there who feels the same?
Iain Peters
I phoned the Inspectorate for clarification on this and the gist is that the RA have done a U turn and withdrawn some of their evidence as, apparently, it was contradicted by documentary evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, The Alford family.
On the face of it this must compromise the Devon County Council and RA's case, and therefore the possibility of a RoW through the Vixen Tor enclosure. However, the evidence of historic use given by myself, Dave Turnbull, Frank Cannings and others did not form part of the RA's submission. We took the witness box as independents, and our evidence will be considered as such by the Inspector when making his decision.
So what does this all mean as regards future access for climbing?
Very hard to say. If the footpath is designated there will still be no access to the Tor itself and it basically becomes an irrelevance as far as climbing is concerned. If the Alfords win, all public access into the VT Enclosure will be denied.
That is not necessarily the end of the story because there are various forms of appeal both in the High Court and/or a Judicial Review of the Inspector's decision. As an individual I can take this case to the High Court or demand a judicial review. It might even help our case as climbers (as opposed to walkers/picnickers etc) if the Inquiry decision favours the Alfords, allowing the option of an appeal.
Whether or not the BMC can afford the considerable cost of any future appeal is a big question; Vixen Tor, at the end of the day, is not the most popular crag in the UK. However, thin ends of wedges seem to be a feature of most crag access issues, and to my mind this is very much the case on Vixen Tor. Most of our British crags are privately owned, which leaves us as a climbing community increasingly vulnerable to the whims of landowners.
The permanent closure of VT would set an unfortunate precedent that could have major consequences for us all far beyond a relatively insignificant lump of granite on Dartmoor.
Normally through the good offices of the BMC and their local access volunteers negotiations often lead to a reasonably satisfactory conclusion such as at Hoghton Quarry. What we have here is a much more difficult situation where an intractable and hostile landowner can, given enough financial support, pursue their case for keeping out the public for as long as it takes.
If I'm right in my assumption that the VT issue may well present a very real long term threat to open access to crags up and down the country, (and remember we climb in an increasingly litigious and health and safety overkill age), then co-ordinated tightly focused action is required now.
The climbing community should be able to afford to call on top class legal counsel: Both DCC and the RA had legal representation at the Inquiry. Climbing is a legitimate and increasingly popular activity; in the past we as a community have shown willingness to work with other organizations such as the RSPB, to share the crags and do our best to minimize our impact.
I do feel strongly that we now need to acquire some real teeth and not rely on other bodies to fight for us. In this case the County Council, the Dartmoor National Park Authority and The RA have all backed off leaving us stranded. Mass trespass or climb-ins won't work, friendly negotiation won't work, but the law might well come down on our side if we can find the means to challenge it, and that has to be the next stage. I am prepared to do this as an individual, because I know from personal experience that 50 years ago I and many others were able to walk and climb freely at Vixen Tor. Is there anyone out there who feels the same?
Iain Peters
In reply to Iain Peters:
Hi Iain, I don't live anywhere near Vixen Tor but I wanted to post an appreciation of the time and effort you are putting in on behalf of climbers.
Hi Iain, I don't live anywhere near Vixen Tor but I wanted to post an appreciation of the time and effort you are putting in on behalf of climbers.
In reply to Iain Peters: I'd like to echo the appreciation, I would be willing to support in any way which i reasonably can.
In reply to puppythedog:
Yes well done for putting in the effort Iain. This is a very important issue for climbers and I for one will help in any way I can.
Yes well done for putting in the effort Iain. This is a very important issue for climbers and I for one will help in any way I can.
In reply to Iain Peters: well done Iain. you are right about thin ends of wedges and the like. we can't allow landowners to take a NIMBYist stance on what is generally regarded as good thing through fear of litigation.
all the best and keep up the good work
all the best and keep up the good work
In reply to Iain Peters: From what I have read on this subject over the past years I think some progress has been clearly made, even if only in terms of identifying the avenues needed to be taken with regards to access to VT. This can very much set a precedence for country wide access, as you point out.
As with the other responses I am happy to assist in whatever way I am able, not being local to that area.
As with the other responses I am happy to assist in whatever way I am able, not being local to that area.
In reply to monkeyboyraw: bump
In reply to Iain Peters:
The problem with wedges is the more times you hit them the more long-term damage you have the potential to do!
It's one crag that we can't climb on at present, if we bide our time there may be a better chance of future generations negotiating with new owners to gain access. It's not just about the here and now. If we keep pushing we potentially send out a message that access shouldn't be quietly tolerated at any venues because someone may come along and claim it as a legal right in the future.
I'd suggest enjoying the memories of the climbs you've done there in the past and moving on.
The problem with wedges is the more times you hit them the more long-term damage you have the potential to do!
It's one crag that we can't climb on at present, if we bide our time there may be a better chance of future generations negotiating with new owners to gain access. It's not just about the here and now. If we keep pushing we potentially send out a message that access shouldn't be quietly tolerated at any venues because someone may come along and claim it as a legal right in the future.
I'd suggest enjoying the memories of the climbs you've done there in the past and moving on.
In reply to timjones:
I think that is the worst possible attitude to hold, on this or any other problem.
I think that is the worst possible attitude to hold, on this or any other problem.
In reply to timjones:
No it's not, it's just the most high profile.
> It's one crag that we can't climb on at present
No it's not, it's just the most high profile.
In reply to Toreador:
very true for example theres a load of sandstone crags in the SE where climbing is not allowed. Maybe nearly as much as half of them and many of them are not particularly near a house.
In this case the owners seem to have got SSSI status partially to help prevent climbers from using them. Well this is my pessimistic view on the matter anyways.
very true for example theres a load of sandstone crags in the SE where climbing is not allowed. Maybe nearly as much as half of them and many of them are not particularly near a house.
In this case the owners seem to have got SSSI status partially to help prevent climbers from using them. Well this is my pessimistic view on the matter anyways.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Given most of the very best natural crags nationally are SSSIs, that's not likely, but more importantly because it is such a contentious and fundementally an expensive process, the likes of NE will be very, very reluctant to designate a site as SSSI, and certainly won't do it unless there is an immediate and real threat to a site - not for the convenience of the landowner (most of whom would run a mile at the threat of statutory protection).
>
> In this case the owners seem to have got SSSI status partially to help prevent climbers from using them. Well this is my pessimistic view on the matter anyways.
> In this case the owners seem to have got SSSI status partially to help prevent climbers from using them. Well this is my pessimistic view on the matter anyways.
Given most of the very best natural crags nationally are SSSIs, that's not likely, but more importantly because it is such a contentious and fundementally an expensive process, the likes of NE will be very, very reluctant to designate a site as SSSI, and certainly won't do it unless there is an immediate and real threat to a site - not for the convenience of the landowner (most of whom would run a mile at the threat of statutory protection).
In reply to Toreador:
Umm. Try reading what I wrote, if I meant it was the only crag we couldn't climb on I would have said so.
> (In reply to timjones)
> [...]
>
> No it's not, it's just the most high profile.
> [...]
>
> No it's not, it's just the most high profile.
Umm. Try reading what I wrote, if I meant it was the only crag we couldn't climb on I would have said so.
In reply to Vince McNally:
Can you explain why it so so bad to suggest holding back to avoid poor publicity and possible collateral damage elsewhere?
Bull headed confrontation is not always wise. Sometimes it's worth taking a wider, long-term view and avoiding poor PR with high profile disputes that you are unlikely to win.
> (In reply to timjones)
>
> I think that is the worst possible attitude to hold, on this or any other problem.
>
> I think that is the worst possible attitude to hold, on this or any other problem.
Can you explain why it so so bad to suggest holding back to avoid poor publicity and possible collateral damage elsewhere?
Bull headed confrontation is not always wise. Sometimes it's worth taking a wider, long-term view and avoiding poor PR with high profile disputes that you are unlikely to win.
In reply to timjones:
Also can you give an example of a cause or fight, being won by activists adopting your suggested stance?
Also can you give an example of a cause or fight, being won by activists adopting your suggested stance?
In reply to timjones:
Umm. I've re-read what you wrote, and it sounds like that's exactly what you were saying?
> Umm. Try reading what I wrote, if I meant it was the only crag we couldn't climb on I would have said so.
Umm. I've re-read what you wrote, and it sounds like that's exactly what you were saying?
In reply to Vince McNally:
How many crags in the UK do we enjoy permissive access too and how many crags are there where the owners turn a blind eye to our climbing?
Why should they continue to do this if we are seen to demand legal access on the basis of past use if another landowner withdraws access at a crag?
Maybe we should calm down and accept that future generations have a better chance of regaining access if we accept that some landowners aren't as keen on climbers as others but they won't own the land in question forever. Accepting the loss of one crag isn't the end of the world and there are certainly access restrictions that we have a far greater chance of overcoming in the near future.
> (In reply to timjones)
>
> can you explain what you mean by poor publicity and collateral damage?
>
> can you explain what you mean by poor publicity and collateral damage?
How many crags in the UK do we enjoy permissive access too and how many crags are there where the owners turn a blind eye to our climbing?
Why should they continue to do this if we are seen to demand legal access on the basis of past use if another landowner withdraws access at a crag?
Maybe we should calm down and accept that future generations have a better chance of regaining access if we accept that some landowners aren't as keen on climbers as others but they won't own the land in question forever. Accepting the loss of one crag isn't the end of the world and there are certainly access restrictions that we have a far greater chance of overcoming in the near future.
In reply to timjones:
With respect, this was far from being "bull-headed confrontation". We all took the witness stand and were closely cross-examined about our evidence. can't speak for myself but both Frank Cannings and Dave Turnbull gave clear and concise details about their experiences at Vixen Tor, and I would say that they and all the other witnesses who appeared for DCC and the RA were committed to a wider long-term approach.
The simple facts of the matter are that the Alfords have gone out of their way to antagonize those who have spoken up against their arbitrary closure of Vixen Tor: they also appear to have unlimited resources to use the law to maintain their definition of the status quo.
Waiting for a change of owner and then conducting tactful negotiations is neither right nor practicable in this case. My argument is (shared by many) that there are serious shortcomings in the present CRoW legislation and that the climbing community is too often ignored. That needs to change, and soon. I would like that fight to take place where the decisions are made, at the highest judicial level and subsequently in Parliament, so that landowners, land users and all those concerned with the freedom to roam (and climb) are not subject to the half-baked laws that we have at the moment, whether those concerning personal liability, health & safety or the murky waters of public access.
There are hugely powerful private landowning individuals and organizations in this country who still call many of the shots. We need to question their motives, confront where necessary and get any bad laws changed or repealed. The High Court or a Judicial Review gives me that option to present my case, but I would hope that the BMC can take it on as the representative body for climbing in England and Wales.
In the light of the Murdoch case, I believe we should make waves whenever necessary. The NI PR machine was incredibly well oiled and smooth-running, but couldn't stop the whole pack of cards crashing to the ground!
> (In reply to Vince McNally)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Bull headed confrontation is not always wise. Sometimes it's worth taking a wider, long-term view and avoiding poor PR with high profile disputes that you are unlikely to win.
With respect, this was far from being "bull-headed confrontation". We all took the witness stand and were closely cross-examined about our evidence. can't speak for myself but both Frank Cannings and Dave Turnbull gave clear and concise details about their experiences at Vixen Tor, and I would say that they and all the other witnesses who appeared for DCC and the RA were committed to a wider long-term approach.
The simple facts of the matter are that the Alfords have gone out of their way to antagonize those who have spoken up against their arbitrary closure of Vixen Tor: they also appear to have unlimited resources to use the law to maintain their definition of the status quo.
Waiting for a change of owner and then conducting tactful negotiations is neither right nor practicable in this case. My argument is (shared by many) that there are serious shortcomings in the present CRoW legislation and that the climbing community is too often ignored. That needs to change, and soon. I would like that fight to take place where the decisions are made, at the highest judicial level and subsequently in Parliament, so that landowners, land users and all those concerned with the freedom to roam (and climb) are not subject to the half-baked laws that we have at the moment, whether those concerning personal liability, health & safety or the murky waters of public access.
There are hugely powerful private landowning individuals and organizations in this country who still call many of the shots. We need to question their motives, confront where necessary and get any bad laws changed or repealed. The High Court or a Judicial Review gives me that option to present my case, but I would hope that the BMC can take it on as the representative body for climbing in England and Wales.
In the light of the Murdoch case, I believe we should make waves whenever necessary. The NI PR machine was incredibly well oiled and smooth-running, but couldn't stop the whole pack of cards crashing to the ground!
In reply to timjones:
Frankly the idea that people like Iain, The BMC and others involved in this issue, Are doing anything to damage access anywhere is ridiculous .
Frankly the idea that people like Iain, The BMC and others involved in this issue, Are doing anything to damage access anywhere is ridiculous .
In reply to timjones:
So you're asking future generations to gamble on (a) the current landowner selling the land and b) the new landowner being more climber-friendly?
Given that no-one has any idea when (or if) (a) might happen, or whether (b) might be the case, I can't see anything positive or constructive in your suggestion.
>
> Maybe we should calm down and accept that future generations have a better chance of regaining access if we accept that some landowners aren't as keen on climbers as others but they won't own the land in question forever.
> Maybe we should calm down and accept that future generations have a better chance of regaining access if we accept that some landowners aren't as keen on climbers as others but they won't own the land in question forever.
So you're asking future generations to gamble on (a) the current landowner selling the land and b) the new landowner being more climber-friendly?
Given that no-one has any idea when (or if) (a) might happen, or whether (b) might be the case, I can't see anything positive or constructive in your suggestion.
In reply to Vince McNally:
It appears that our viuews differ but do we really need to resort to claiming that someone eleses opinion is ridiculous? That is what I am referring to as bull headed behaviour rather than the work of those who have spoken up on our behalf in a more reasoned and civil manner.
> (In reply to timjones)
>
> Frankly the idea that people like Iain, The BMC and others involved in this issue, Are doing anything to damage access anywhere is ridiculous .
>
> Frankly the idea that people like Iain, The BMC and others involved in this issue, Are doing anything to damage access anywhere is ridiculous .
It appears that our viuews differ but do we really need to resort to claiming that someone eleses opinion is ridiculous? That is what I am referring to as bull headed behaviour rather than the work of those who have spoken up on our behalf in a more reasoned and civil manner.
In reply to timjones:
you make climbing sound like some kind of illegal activity!
> (In reply to Vince McNally)
> [...]
>
> How many crags in the UK do we enjoy permissive access too and how many crags are there where the owners turn a blind eye to our climbing?
>> [...]
>
> How many crags in the UK do we enjoy permissive access too and how many crags are there where the owners turn a blind eye to our climbing?
you make climbing sound like some kind of illegal activity!
In reply to Iain Peters:
See me reply to Vince which explains what I am defining as bull headed behaviour.
It's only a personal opinion but I suspect that this one has probably been pursued as far as is practically possible at this moment in time and it may be better to focus resources on other negotiations that there is a greeater chance of winning.
Personally I climb, walk and farm and have enjoyed permissive access to many areas for many years. As a farmer I seek to avoid the GOML approach. Sadly the growing belief that todays permissive access creates a legal right of access tomorrow is a step to far IMO. Should I really need to periodically prove that I have "told off" walkers that are doing no harm off in order to avoid the creation of a right of access?
> With respect, this was far from being "bull-headed confrontation". We all took the witness stand and were closely cross-examined about our evidence. can't speak for myself but both Frank Cannings and Dave Turnbull gave clear and concise details about their experiences at Vixen Tor, and I would say that they and all the other witnesses who appeared for DCC and the RA were committed to a wider long-term approach.
>
> The simple facts of the matter are that the Alfords have gone out of their way to antagonize those who have spoken up against their arbitrary closure of Vixen Tor: they also appear to have unlimited resources to use the law to maintain their definition of the status quo.
>
> Waiting for a change of owner and then conducting tactful negotiations is neither right nor practicable in this case. My argument is (shared by many) that there are serious shortcomings in the present CRoW legislation and that the climbing community is too often ignored. That needs to change, and soon. I would like that fight to take place where the decisions are made, at the highest judicial level and subsequently in Parliament, so that landowners, land users and all those concerned with the freedom to roam (and climb) are not subject to the half-baked laws that we have at the moment, whether those concerning personal liability, health & safety or the murky waters of public access.
>
> There are hugely powerful private landowning individuals and organizations in this country who still call many of the shots. We need to question their motives, confront where necessary and get any bad laws changed or repealed. The High Court or a Judicial Review gives me that option to present my case, but I would hope that the BMC can take it on as the representative body for climbing in England and Wales.
>
> In the light of the Murdoch case, I believe we should make waves whenever necessary. The NI PR machine was incredibly well oiled and smooth-running, but couldn't stop the whole pack of cards crashing to the ground!
>
> The simple facts of the matter are that the Alfords have gone out of their way to antagonize those who have spoken up against their arbitrary closure of Vixen Tor: they also appear to have unlimited resources to use the law to maintain their definition of the status quo.
>
> Waiting for a change of owner and then conducting tactful negotiations is neither right nor practicable in this case. My argument is (shared by many) that there are serious shortcomings in the present CRoW legislation and that the climbing community is too often ignored. That needs to change, and soon. I would like that fight to take place where the decisions are made, at the highest judicial level and subsequently in Parliament, so that landowners, land users and all those concerned with the freedom to roam (and climb) are not subject to the half-baked laws that we have at the moment, whether those concerning personal liability, health & safety or the murky waters of public access.
>
> There are hugely powerful private landowning individuals and organizations in this country who still call many of the shots. We need to question their motives, confront where necessary and get any bad laws changed or repealed. The High Court or a Judicial Review gives me that option to present my case, but I would hope that the BMC can take it on as the representative body for climbing in England and Wales.
>
> In the light of the Murdoch case, I believe we should make waves whenever necessary. The NI PR machine was incredibly well oiled and smooth-running, but couldn't stop the whole pack of cards crashing to the ground!
See me reply to Vince which explains what I am defining as bull headed behaviour.
It's only a personal opinion but I suspect that this one has probably been pursued as far as is practically possible at this moment in time and it may be better to focus resources on other negotiations that there is a greeater chance of winning.
Personally I climb, walk and farm and have enjoyed permissive access to many areas for many years. As a farmer I seek to avoid the GOML approach. Sadly the growing belief that todays permissive access creates a legal right of access tomorrow is a step to far IMO. Should I really need to periodically prove that I have "told off" walkers that are doing no harm off in order to avoid the creation of a right of access?
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
You obviously feel a great deal more shifty about partaking in our sport than I do
Climbing is fine trespass can be a somewhat more thorny subject ;(
> (In reply to timjones)
> [...]
>
>
>
> you make climbing sound like some kind of illegal activity!
> [...]
>
>
>
> you make climbing sound like some kind of illegal activity!
You obviously feel a great deal more shifty about partaking in our sport than I do
Climbing is fine trespass can be a somewhat more thorny subject ;(
In reply to Vince McNally:
We don't have to agree, but surely all BMC members have the right to express their views without them being called ridiculous?
> (In reply to timjones)
>
> I dont agree
>
>
> I dont agree
>
We don't have to agree, but surely all BMC members have the right to express their views without them being called ridiculous?
In reply to timjones:
Don't be ridiculous...
> We don't have to agree, but surely all BMC members have the right to express their views without them being called ridiculous?
Don't be ridiculous...
In reply to Iain Peters:
If I can do anytyhing to help, count me in.
It looks like a nice place to climb and to enjoy a picnic.
If I can do anytyhing to help, count me in.
It looks like a nice place to climb and to enjoy a picnic.
In reply to timjones:
I have been involved in farming and forestry for most of my adult life and still have Commoners' Rights on north Dartmoor. As a landowner I appreciate how fortunate I am to live and work where I do, and I applaud any laws that give others the right to enjoy my working environment at their leisure. I also feel that permissive access is far too dependent on the whims of an individual landowner.
I have no problem in seeing areas opened to the public where they do not infringe on the privacy of others. I have also suffered as a result of unthinking selfish behaviour by the general public, but there's no law in the land that will prevent that in the future. In my view truly open access will actually move all of us forward. Closed attitudes breed autocracy.
In the specific case of Vixen Tor, I have followed events right from the start, including the DNPA's mistaken refusal to counter the Alfords' original appeal by taking the case to a higher court.
Most emphatically I would say that this case has not been pursued as far as is possible. There's a long way to go yet I can assure you.
I hope that the day will come when climbers will be free to access most of the crags in this country where their presence does not cause undue disturbance of individual landowners and that people like Elfyn Jones will then not have to spend days and days in difficult negotiations with recalcitrant landowners but spend their time much more profitably in working with the conservation interests in the UK to ensure that birds, beasts, flowers and climbers can co-exist peacefully together. If that means turning VT into a cause celebre - bring it on I say!
I have been involved in farming and forestry for most of my adult life and still have Commoners' Rights on north Dartmoor. As a landowner I appreciate how fortunate I am to live and work where I do, and I applaud any laws that give others the right to enjoy my working environment at their leisure. I also feel that permissive access is far too dependent on the whims of an individual landowner.
I have no problem in seeing areas opened to the public where they do not infringe on the privacy of others. I have also suffered as a result of unthinking selfish behaviour by the general public, but there's no law in the land that will prevent that in the future. In my view truly open access will actually move all of us forward. Closed attitudes breed autocracy.
In the specific case of Vixen Tor, I have followed events right from the start, including the DNPA's mistaken refusal to counter the Alfords' original appeal by taking the case to a higher court.
Most emphatically I would say that this case has not been pursued as far as is possible. There's a long way to go yet I can assure you.
I hope that the day will come when climbers will be free to access most of the crags in this country where their presence does not cause undue disturbance of individual landowners and that people like Elfyn Jones will then not have to spend days and days in difficult negotiations with recalcitrant landowners but spend their time much more profitably in working with the conservation interests in the UK to ensure that birds, beasts, flowers and climbers can co-exist peacefully together. If that means turning VT into a cause celebre - bring it on I say!
In reply to Iain Peters:
A bold and laudable vision. I suspect that estblishing a consensus on the rights of birds, beasts and flowers will be decidedly tougher than reaching a consensus on the rights of landowners and climbers ;(
A bold and laudable vision. I suspect that estblishing a consensus on the rights of birds, beasts and flowers will be decidedly tougher than reaching a consensus on the rights of landowners and climbers ;(
In reply to Iain Peters:
Hi Iain
Best regards from a hot Spain!
do you have anyone in mind, has a case like this been won before and if so by whom etc?
Sam and Rich Orange
Hi Iain
Best regards from a hot Spain!
do you have anyone in mind, has a case like this been won before and if so by whom etc?
Sam and Rich Orange
In reply to Iain Peters:
I'm going to try to do something that's quite hard, at leeast for me: support two points of view.
I appreciate the effort that Iain and others have made *AND* I see where timjones is coming from: creating a flash/rallying point for other landowners, or case law (which may well not be in climbers' favour) *may* be counter-productive overall.
Perhaps climbers should:
a) through a recognised increased BMC levy pay for
b) systematic and competent/capable(*) negotiations that lead to
c) durable crag by crag access arrangements
This would include, where necessary,
d) purchase and then resale of significant parcels of land (through anonymous third parties) containing crags with
e) covenants created during the ownership period enabling access
Actually, I just wanted tim to be spared a flaming as it seems he's got a fairly reasonable point of view to express!
J
I'm going to try to do something that's quite hard, at leeast for me: support two points of view.
I appreciate the effort that Iain and others have made *AND* I see where timjones is coming from: creating a flash/rallying point for other landowners, or case law (which may well not be in climbers' favour) *may* be counter-productive overall.
Perhaps climbers should:
a) through a recognised increased BMC levy pay for
b) systematic and competent/capable(*) negotiations that lead to
c) durable crag by crag access arrangements
This would include, where necessary,
d) purchase and then resale of significant parcels of land (through anonymous third parties) containing crags with
e) covenants created during the ownership period enabling access
Actually, I just wanted tim to be spared a flaming as it seems he's got a fairly reasonable point of view to express!
J
In reply to Sam Mayfield:
Hi Sam and Rich. Ditto from a wet and windy dartmoor. Still it was glorious last week. 3 new routes on Cornish greenstone, bright sun and a big sea running - heaven!
Funny you should ask about any similar case: only last year a neighbour, friend and fellow Commoner lost their appeal against having a RoW through their property. Somehow an ancient footpath had been left off the definitive map, and no-one had noticed apart from a couple of old ladies from the village who applied to have it re-instated and were able to prove that they had used this path regularly in the past. I believe the RA took up their case and they have now won, leaving my neighbours with a massive legal bill. Whilst I can sympathise with my friend, the case has lost them most of their savings I applaud the prnciple that the little man (or women in this case can get justice.
Of course climbing wasn't an issue, but the thrust of my argument is that it's imperative that we as climbers should not just back off whenever arbitrary bans are put in place which fly in the face of historical freedom of access. I'm prepared to take this all the way as an individual if necessary but will have to find a way to finance the whole deal. As it stands at the moment climbers are in a lose/lose position and that is a precedent that shouldn't be allowed to happen.
When I attended the Inquiry I spoke to another old acquaintance and discovered that she was there along with representatives of various private landowners to support the Alfords. In her case she was seeking to prevent the use of the river that ran through her property by canoeists.
Same old story, but with a watery twist.
There is a powerful vested interest in this country that would rather we all spent our time sat in front of the telly with our crisps and beers watching rather than taking part. It needs to be challenged and Vixen Tor given the acrimony, can provide a perfect test case and an opportunity for all climbers to defend their sport.
You and Rich are lucky to spend your time in regions where climbing is considered to be very much part of the rural scene, and where local communities and landowners recognize the very real benefits to be gained by welcoming climbers, Kalymnos being a prime example. Cast your mind back a few years to the F&M epidemic which basically closed shop on the British countryside and remember the effect it had not just on the farmers (who actually received compensation) but on the entire rural economy.
Old fogeys like myself may regret the increase in popularity on many of our crags and outcrops, but it has to be a good thing if more people have more access to the countryside and more freedom to go climbing, canoeing or whatever, otherwise we might find ourselves in a situation where we can no longer behave in a potentially "dangerous" way because there will be fewer and fewer opportunities to do so.
Hi Sam and Rich. Ditto from a wet and windy dartmoor. Still it was glorious last week. 3 new routes on Cornish greenstone, bright sun and a big sea running - heaven!
Funny you should ask about any similar case: only last year a neighbour, friend and fellow Commoner lost their appeal against having a RoW through their property. Somehow an ancient footpath had been left off the definitive map, and no-one had noticed apart from a couple of old ladies from the village who applied to have it re-instated and were able to prove that they had used this path regularly in the past. I believe the RA took up their case and they have now won, leaving my neighbours with a massive legal bill. Whilst I can sympathise with my friend, the case has lost them most of their savings I applaud the prnciple that the little man (or women in this case can get justice.
Of course climbing wasn't an issue, but the thrust of my argument is that it's imperative that we as climbers should not just back off whenever arbitrary bans are put in place which fly in the face of historical freedom of access. I'm prepared to take this all the way as an individual if necessary but will have to find a way to finance the whole deal. As it stands at the moment climbers are in a lose/lose position and that is a precedent that shouldn't be allowed to happen.
When I attended the Inquiry I spoke to another old acquaintance and discovered that she was there along with representatives of various private landowners to support the Alfords. In her case she was seeking to prevent the use of the river that ran through her property by canoeists.
Same old story, but with a watery twist.
There is a powerful vested interest in this country that would rather we all spent our time sat in front of the telly with our crisps and beers watching rather than taking part. It needs to be challenged and Vixen Tor given the acrimony, can provide a perfect test case and an opportunity for all climbers to defend their sport.
You and Rich are lucky to spend your time in regions where climbing is considered to be very much part of the rural scene, and where local communities and landowners recognize the very real benefits to be gained by welcoming climbers, Kalymnos being a prime example. Cast your mind back a few years to the F&M epidemic which basically closed shop on the British countryside and remember the effect it had not just on the farmers (who actually received compensation) but on the entire rural economy.
Old fogeys like myself may regret the increase in popularity on many of our crags and outcrops, but it has to be a good thing if more people have more access to the countryside and more freedom to go climbing, canoeing or whatever, otherwise we might find ourselves in a situation where we can no longer behave in a potentially "dangerous" way because there will be fewer and fewer opportunities to do so.
In reply to JJL:
I certainly wouldn't want to 'flame' timjones, but the problem with your very reasoned and reasonable proposal is that it basically maintains the status quo with issues dealt with on a crag by crag basis. What I'm suggesting may appear to be a more radical and divisive approach, but what is urgently needed is a complete re-appraisal of CRoW, and a strengthening of the current legislation.
That just will not happen unless the voice of climbers (and other countryside users) is heard. Turning a minor local issue into a headline test case has worked in other areas and I maintain that Vixen Tor presents just such an opportunity, primarily because the landowners in this case are not the slightest bit concerned about tactful negotiations or civilised argument. They have threatened violence, sprayed grease on stone walls, used the heavy mob to defend their rights and consistently opposed any form of compromise.
By all means let's have a BMC that conducts its negotiations in the ways you suggest, but at the same time don't let's fall into the trap of avoiding confrontation through the judicial or political process. I believe the laws should be changed and therefore should be challenged through the courts. The DNPA were wrong to back off when they did, presumably on the grounds that it would have been an unjustifiable waste of ratepayers' money to continue. Well, I ultimately pay through taxation for the subsidies that farmers like myself get and as such maintain the right to question aspects of the law that favour one group over another when it comes to access.
I certainly wouldn't want to 'flame' timjones, but the problem with your very reasoned and reasonable proposal is that it basically maintains the status quo with issues dealt with on a crag by crag basis. What I'm suggesting may appear to be a more radical and divisive approach, but what is urgently needed is a complete re-appraisal of CRoW, and a strengthening of the current legislation.
That just will not happen unless the voice of climbers (and other countryside users) is heard. Turning a minor local issue into a headline test case has worked in other areas and I maintain that Vixen Tor presents just such an opportunity, primarily because the landowners in this case are not the slightest bit concerned about tactful negotiations or civilised argument. They have threatened violence, sprayed grease on stone walls, used the heavy mob to defend their rights and consistently opposed any form of compromise.
By all means let's have a BMC that conducts its negotiations in the ways you suggest, but at the same time don't let's fall into the trap of avoiding confrontation through the judicial or political process. I believe the laws should be changed and therefore should be challenged through the courts. The DNPA were wrong to back off when they did, presumably on the grounds that it would have been an unjustifiable waste of ratepayers' money to continue. Well, I ultimately pay through taxation for the subsidies that farmers like myself get and as such maintain the right to question aspects of the law that favour one group over another when it comes to access.
In reply to Iain Peters:
Iain has made some very good points here - Vixen Tor is simply too important a case to just give up on. Whatever the next step might be I think the BMC needs to take it and stand up for the long term future of the crag. I know this view is shared by quite a few South West climbers and also by Roger Bennion who chairs the BMC Access, Conservation & Environment Group. Climbing has taken place on Vixen Tor with minimal environmental impact over several decades and there is no reason why it shouldn't continue in this way in the future.
Iain has made some very good points here - Vixen Tor is simply too important a case to just give up on. Whatever the next step might be I think the BMC needs to take it and stand up for the long term future of the crag. I know this view is shared by quite a few South West climbers and also by Roger Bennion who chairs the BMC Access, Conservation & Environment Group. Climbing has taken place on Vixen Tor with minimal environmental impact over several decades and there is no reason why it shouldn't continue in this way in the future.
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
Thanks for that Dave, and I'm glad that the BMC do place such importance on the Vixen Tor case. I also believe that it is possible to fight our corner on two fronts: in other words through the negotiating skills of all the BMC A,C&E teams at local or national level wherever appropriate, but also to address by other means - in this case, the courts - particular anomalies in the present laws or when negotiation and compromise fail.
Increasingly the climbing community is aware of and responds positively to the ecological and environmental impacts of our sport, evidenced by the general observation of voluntary seasonal climbing restrictions, but when faced by unreason and outright hostility we should be prepared to fight and not rely solely on other organizations to do so on our behalf.
I was told by Mrs Oddy of the RoW section of the Planning Inspectorate that the inspector's decision might be made later on this month or certainly before Christmas. She also informed me that, despite the RA's u turn decision to maintain a neutral stance, all user and documentary evidence will be taken into account.
Those of us who gave formal evidence at the Inquiry will receive letters outlining the Inspector's decision along with advice about how to proceed if we disagree with his verdict. I guess we will have to wait and see, but it looks increasingly likely that the climbers' (as opposed to walkers' or casual visitors') case may have to be carried forward unilaterally. If the RA/DCC win, it will do nothing for climbing access, unless the Alfords themselves decide to do a complete u turn and welcome us all with open arms. Dream on!
Thanks for that Dave, and I'm glad that the BMC do place such importance on the Vixen Tor case. I also believe that it is possible to fight our corner on two fronts: in other words through the negotiating skills of all the BMC A,C&E teams at local or national level wherever appropriate, but also to address by other means - in this case, the courts - particular anomalies in the present laws or when negotiation and compromise fail.
Increasingly the climbing community is aware of and responds positively to the ecological and environmental impacts of our sport, evidenced by the general observation of voluntary seasonal climbing restrictions, but when faced by unreason and outright hostility we should be prepared to fight and not rely solely on other organizations to do so on our behalf.
I was told by Mrs Oddy of the RoW section of the Planning Inspectorate that the inspector's decision might be made later on this month or certainly before Christmas. She also informed me that, despite the RA's u turn decision to maintain a neutral stance, all user and documentary evidence will be taken into account.
Those of us who gave formal evidence at the Inquiry will receive letters outlining the Inspector's decision along with advice about how to proceed if we disagree with his verdict. I guess we will have to wait and see, but it looks increasingly likely that the climbers' (as opposed to walkers' or casual visitors') case may have to be carried forward unilaterally. If the RA/DCC win, it will do nothing for climbing access, unless the Alfords themselves decide to do a complete u turn and welcome us all with open arms. Dream on!
In reply to Iain Peters:
>>>
I feel the same. Please post on here if there is any way I can help.
>>>
> Is there anyone out there who feels the same?
I feel the same. Please post on here if there is any way I can help.
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
Dave,
The more I think about this inquiry the stronger my conviction that it is a complete red herring.
If you recall your own cross-examination by counsel for the Alfords, she was not the slightest bit interested in why you were at Vixen Tor but how you entered and left the area. It was exactly the same when Frank, I and others gave evidence. All her questions concerned whether or not people had used the proposed footpath to access the tor: a clever move, because if the historic evidence pointed to people using a number of different access routes, the case for the DCC designated path would be weakened. It is, as you have pointed out only a short loop off an existing RoW outside the enclosure with no logical reason to exist except to access the tor itself.
Now cast your mind back to the original DNPA decision to declare the whole of the Vixen Tor enclosure as Open Access land, and then bring proceedings against the Alfords for improving natural moorland without permission for which they received a substantial fine. The DPNPA lost that case on appeal and it has disappeared off the agenda.
In effect the Alfords are sitting on a court judgment that permits them to deny access to the general public. Whether or not a designated footpath is created through their land doesn't alter that fact. Obviously they would prefer not to have any access at all, but if they lose this appeal all that will happen is that there will be a single RoW across the enclosure which they may well fence off to prevent "trespass" on their private property.
My gut feeling is that all historic users or the organisations who represent them must now go back to the original decision to declare Vixen Tor as Open Access. The DPNA made a crucial error by not calling in more user witnesses like yourself at the appeal. It was all very low key which leads me to believe that powerful interests were bought to bear at management Committee level within DCC and the Park Authority, both of which are heavily loaded with landowners and farmers.
What is needed now is good legal advice on whether or not the issue of Open Access at the site can be revisited. The more user support groups that can be involved in this process the better.
The facts are that for hundreds of years the public have had free access to Vixen Tor. Traditionally it was one of the most popular areas for wortleberries and people travelled up to the tor from Tavistock and even Plymouth by railway every summer. They might well have entered by a gate or style but once in the enclosure would have wandered wherever they wished. It is the same for climbers. The rocks extend over a reasonably wide area, quite apart from the main tor itself.
The situation here is exactly the same as at Hay and Hound Tors: the majority of users have not been dedicated walkers looking for a through route from A to B but casual visitors enjoying all the amenities of the site, including climbing, for their own sake, and that must form a central plank for any future appeal. Open Access has to be the main objective now, and on reflection I think that my proposal that the BMC should initiate unilateral procedures was wrong. We should now be canvassing support from all individual and group users to strengthen the case for re-opening the debate.
Hope you agree and I am more than willing to help promote the climbing side of any future action.
Iain
Dave,
The more I think about this inquiry the stronger my conviction that it is a complete red herring.
If you recall your own cross-examination by counsel for the Alfords, she was not the slightest bit interested in why you were at Vixen Tor but how you entered and left the area. It was exactly the same when Frank, I and others gave evidence. All her questions concerned whether or not people had used the proposed footpath to access the tor: a clever move, because if the historic evidence pointed to people using a number of different access routes, the case for the DCC designated path would be weakened. It is, as you have pointed out only a short loop off an existing RoW outside the enclosure with no logical reason to exist except to access the tor itself.
Now cast your mind back to the original DNPA decision to declare the whole of the Vixen Tor enclosure as Open Access land, and then bring proceedings against the Alfords for improving natural moorland without permission for which they received a substantial fine. The DPNPA lost that case on appeal and it has disappeared off the agenda.
In effect the Alfords are sitting on a court judgment that permits them to deny access to the general public. Whether or not a designated footpath is created through their land doesn't alter that fact. Obviously they would prefer not to have any access at all, but if they lose this appeal all that will happen is that there will be a single RoW across the enclosure which they may well fence off to prevent "trespass" on their private property.
My gut feeling is that all historic users or the organisations who represent them must now go back to the original decision to declare Vixen Tor as Open Access. The DPNA made a crucial error by not calling in more user witnesses like yourself at the appeal. It was all very low key which leads me to believe that powerful interests were bought to bear at management Committee level within DCC and the Park Authority, both of which are heavily loaded with landowners and farmers.
What is needed now is good legal advice on whether or not the issue of Open Access at the site can be revisited. The more user support groups that can be involved in this process the better.
The facts are that for hundreds of years the public have had free access to Vixen Tor. Traditionally it was one of the most popular areas for wortleberries and people travelled up to the tor from Tavistock and even Plymouth by railway every summer. They might well have entered by a gate or style but once in the enclosure would have wandered wherever they wished. It is the same for climbers. The rocks extend over a reasonably wide area, quite apart from the main tor itself.
The situation here is exactly the same as at Hay and Hound Tors: the majority of users have not been dedicated walkers looking for a through route from A to B but casual visitors enjoying all the amenities of the site, including climbing, for their own sake, and that must form a central plank for any future appeal. Open Access has to be the main objective now, and on reflection I think that my proposal that the BMC should initiate unilateral procedures was wrong. We should now be canvassing support from all individual and group users to strengthen the case for re-opening the debate.
Hope you agree and I am more than willing to help promote the climbing side of any future action.
Iain
In reply to Pekkie:
Thanks Pekkie and all the others who have posted their support here. Keep 'em coming in or email me via UKC. I'm also grateful to timjones for his caveat; it's important to understand different viewpoints.
I think there are many past users out there who have already registered their evidence, but there may be more. What I think is essential now is support for the principles involved in this case and the best way to do that is via the BMC. They are the people with the experience and administrative back up to make sure our voice is heard. if you have climbed or visited Vixen Tor in the past and haven't informed anyone it might be a good idea to contact the BMC with brief details.
I have had my disagreements with the BMC in the recent past on various issues, but in this instance I fully support any further action they might take to re-open Vixen Tor and other venues for climbing. They need yours as well!
Thanks Pekkie and all the others who have posted their support here. Keep 'em coming in or email me via UKC. I'm also grateful to timjones for his caveat; it's important to understand different viewpoints.
I think there are many past users out there who have already registered their evidence, but there may be more. What I think is essential now is support for the principles involved in this case and the best way to do that is via the BMC. They are the people with the experience and administrative back up to make sure our voice is heard. if you have climbed or visited Vixen Tor in the past and haven't informed anyone it might be a good idea to contact the BMC with brief details.
I have had my disagreements with the BMC in the recent past on various issues, but in this instance I fully support any further action they might take to re-open Vixen Tor and other venues for climbing. They need yours as well!
In reply to Iain Peters:
For me personally the big issue and potentially dangerous precedent in this case revolved around the prosecution for illegal improvement and the link between that case and CROW access. It poses some big questions for farmers like myself who seek to include self-financed conservation measures within their farms. I would fight very vigorously againest any proposals that have the potential to bolt statutory access rights on top of environmental benefits provided by farmers on a voluntary basis. I firmly believe that any precedents set in this area could be hugely damaging to both the environment and access.
For me personally the big issue and potentially dangerous precedent in this case revolved around the prosecution for illegal improvement and the link between that case and CROW access. It poses some big questions for farmers like myself who seek to include self-financed conservation measures within their farms. I would fight very vigorously againest any proposals that have the potential to bolt statutory access rights on top of environmental benefits provided by farmers on a voluntary basis. I firmly believe that any precedents set in this area could be hugely damaging to both the environment and access.
In reply to timjones:
Just in case anyone had a little while to spare, here is the judgement in favour of the Alfords when they successfully appealed against their prosecution.
http://kar.kent.ac.uk/11952/1/alford_jel_note_final.pdf
Tim, I am no farmer (have lived in the country all my life though so I'm by no means a towny) but I do not understand how you conclude that any of this leads towards "bolt[ing] statutory access rights on top of environmental benefits provided by farmers". Opinion on the case seems to show the opposite, that some landowners may seek to use the Roberts case to sanction environmental improvements purely to sidestep future CROW designations....though clearly this wouldnt apply to the Roberts and their now unblemished record.
Iain, keep going, I agree with you that victory for full access in the long term may be better than a short term gain in this particular enquiry.
> (In reply to Iain Peters)
>
> For me personally the big issue and potentially dangerous precedent in this case revolved around the prosecution for illegal improvement and the link between that case and CROW access. It poses some big questions for farmers like myself who seek to include self-financed conservation measures within their farms. I would fight very vigorously againest any proposals that have the potential to bolt statutory access rights on top of environmental benefits provided by farmers on a voluntary basis. I firmly believe that any precedents set in this area could be hugely damaging to both the environment and access.
>
> For me personally the big issue and potentially dangerous precedent in this case revolved around the prosecution for illegal improvement and the link between that case and CROW access. It poses some big questions for farmers like myself who seek to include self-financed conservation measures within their farms. I would fight very vigorously againest any proposals that have the potential to bolt statutory access rights on top of environmental benefits provided by farmers on a voluntary basis. I firmly believe that any precedents set in this area could be hugely damaging to both the environment and access.
Just in case anyone had a little while to spare, here is the judgement in favour of the Alfords when they successfully appealed against their prosecution.
http://kar.kent.ac.uk/11952/1/alford_jel_note_final.pdf
Tim, I am no farmer (have lived in the country all my life though so I'm by no means a towny) but I do not understand how you conclude that any of this leads towards "bolt[ing] statutory access rights on top of environmental benefits provided by farmers". Opinion on the case seems to show the opposite, that some landowners may seek to use the Roberts case to sanction environmental improvements purely to sidestep future CROW designations....though clearly this wouldnt apply to the Roberts and their now unblemished record.
Iain, keep going, I agree with you that victory for full access in the long term may be better than a short term gain in this particular enquiry.
In reply to timjones: what asensible and pragmatic attitude. We're not revolutionaries!
In reply to Iain Peters:
The Planning Inspector's decision arrived by post this morning. Haven't ploughed through it all yet but the long and the short is: The Alfords have succeeded.
The dedicated footpath through the Vixen Tor Enclosure has NOT been confirmed.
So we are now back to square one. I'm not actually too disappointed because either decision would not have helped us as climbers gain any access.
Off to Greece today for a couple of weeks but will get on the case when I return. Suggest anyone interested should contact the BMC for further information.
The Planning Inspector's decision arrived by post this morning. Haven't ploughed through it all yet but the long and the short is: The Alfords have succeeded.
The dedicated footpath through the Vixen Tor Enclosure has NOT been confirmed.
So we are now back to square one. I'm not actually too disappointed because either decision would not have helped us as climbers gain any access.
Off to Greece today for a couple of weeks but will get on the case when I return. Suggest anyone interested should contact the BMC for further information.
In reply to Iain Peters:
Thankyou for continuing to post updates.
Thankyou for continuing to post updates.
In reply to Iain Peters: for those of you that haven't climbed at vixen tor,
it is not on farmland
it doesn't deserve sssi status (as its botanically identical to many other outcrops on dartmoor)
most importantly it's moorland ie the great outdoors, impossible to privately own (figuratively speaking)
if you own land in a national park (or even on it periphery) you must expect the public to roam about irrespective of how rich you are.
i think the land owner should be pursued for as long as they own the land, even if it doesn't result in access.
it is not on farmland
it doesn't deserve sssi status (as its botanically identical to many other outcrops on dartmoor)
most importantly it's moorland ie the great outdoors, impossible to privately own (figuratively speaking)
if you own land in a national park (or even on it periphery) you must expect the public to roam about irrespective of how rich you are.
i think the land owner should be pursued for as long as they own the land, even if it doesn't result in access.
In reply to franksnb:
Why don't we all show our disgust by boycotting.
If Mrs. Alford farms then her produce must be sold to someone.
Why not all of us - climbers, walkers etc. - boycott whoever that may be, after all, there is no reason why we should purchase any particular commodity from whoever provides her with the means to exist.
I'm sure her customer(s) would then apply some pressure.
Similarly why not, whenever visiting the area, make a point of not purchasing anything within a range of (say) 25 miles. Here I include everything - fuel at garages, beer at the pub afterwards, accommodation (in whatever form), food from shops.
Sooner or later both Mrs. Alford, and all her neighbours, will come around to the view that the green pound is something they cannot afford to be without.
Remember that during the Foot and Mouth outbreak, the countryside was brought to its knees financially.
Farming cannot exist without customers, and many farmers nowadays cannot exist (financially) o farming alone.
Yes, this will mean bankruptcy to some (if she continues with her stance), but she started this dirty fight, so why don't we finish it.
Why don't we all show our disgust by boycotting.
If Mrs. Alford farms then her produce must be sold to someone.
Why not all of us - climbers, walkers etc. - boycott whoever that may be, after all, there is no reason why we should purchase any particular commodity from whoever provides her with the means to exist.
I'm sure her customer(s) would then apply some pressure.
Similarly why not, whenever visiting the area, make a point of not purchasing anything within a range of (say) 25 miles. Here I include everything - fuel at garages, beer at the pub afterwards, accommodation (in whatever form), food from shops.
Sooner or later both Mrs. Alford, and all her neighbours, will come around to the view that the green pound is something they cannot afford to be without.
Remember that during the Foot and Mouth outbreak, the countryside was brought to its knees financially.
Farming cannot exist without customers, and many farmers nowadays cannot exist (financially) o farming alone.
Yes, this will mean bankruptcy to some (if she continues with her stance), but she started this dirty fight, so why don't we finish it.
In reply to timjones:
>I firmly believe that any precedents set in this area could be hugely damaging to the financial interests of landowners.
Fixed that for you.
jcm
>I firmly believe that any precedents set in this area could be hugely damaging to the financial interests of landowners.
Fixed that for you.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Grow up!
Dishonestly misquoting other peope does nothing help your cause.
> (In reply to timjones)
>
> >I firmly believe that any precedents set in this area could be hugely damaging to the financial interests of landowners.
>
> Fixed that for you.
>
>
> >I firmly believe that any precedents set in this area could be hugely damaging to the financial interests of landowners.
>
> Fixed that for you.
>
Grow up!
Dishonestly misquoting other peope does nothing help your cause.
In reply to fred99:
What an informed post! Some of us live well within 25 miles of Mrs Alford, myself an awful lot closer than that. so are you suggesting that I stop supporting my local shops, cafes, PO etc etc? - get real I'm not about to bring my community to it's knees in the way you suggest.
What an informed post! Some of us live well within 25 miles of Mrs Alford, myself an awful lot closer than that. so are you suggesting that I stop supporting my local shops, cafes, PO etc etc? - get real I'm not about to bring my community to it's knees in the way you suggest.
In reply to fred99: Funny thing is that everything I read about this woman and her tribe makes me feel she would revel in the misery of others, neighbours or otherwise.
It makes no sense at all to take out your frustrations on the pubs, shops, post office etc etc near her. I dare say many of them loath her way of behaving too. Land ownership is about the long term so it may just be that access may be prevented for a while longer. But her day will come, the land will change hands and whatever the people who come after her are like, they will have to go some to be worse than her.
It makes no sense at all to take out your frustrations on the pubs, shops, post office etc etc near her. I dare say many of them loath her way of behaving too. Land ownership is about the long term so it may just be that access may be prevented for a while longer. But her day will come, the land will change hands and whatever the people who come after her are like, they will have to go some to be worse than her.
In reply to higherclimbingwales:
Strange that gives you that kind of emotional response, I would never have dreamt that would happen. For me climbing is freedom and access to a crag should be given, it is afterall the so called wilderness. however this country is getting smaller by the year, what with us humans encroaching on the countryside.
I think this will not be the only case regarding access to a crag in years to come.
> (In reply to timjones)
> [...]
>
>
>
> you make climbing sound like some kind of illegal activity!
> [...]
>
>
>
> you make climbing sound like some kind of illegal activity!
Strange that gives you that kind of emotional response, I would never have dreamt that would happen. For me climbing is freedom and access to a crag should be given, it is afterall the so called wilderness. however this country is getting smaller by the year, what with us humans encroaching on the countryside.
I think this will not be the only case regarding access to a crag in years to come.
In reply to halo:
As her land virtually borders an Army firsing range can't a 'friendly fire' event be organised? No wall, no farm, no farmer, no problem!
As her land virtually borders an Army firsing range can't a 'friendly fire' event be organised? No wall, no farm, no farmer, no problem!
In reply to andyhodges: No its a UK forces range, not the yanks, so that wont work!
In reply to Wainers44:
It's a nice thought but there is a son and heir so I'm fairly certain that we won't be seeing this parcel of land advertised for sale in Devon Life for many decades to come - long after the current generation of UKCers/BMC members are pushing up the daisies.
> (In reply to fred99) But her day will come, the land will change hands and whatever the people who come after her are like, they will have to go some to be worse than her.
It's a nice thought but there is a son and heir so I'm fairly certain that we won't be seeing this parcel of land advertised for sale in Devon Life for many decades to come - long after the current generation of UKCers/BMC members are pushing up the daisies.
In reply to La Shamster: Probably true; depends how long term a view we all want to take.
I have been thinking about what direct action might make a difference here, mass tresspass...maybe, but how many times and by who?? a direct boycott of her produce...again possible, but very hard to trace right through to point of sale! From your posts you live a bit closer to her, any ideas?? (assuming you would see action as an option!).
In our "free" society it is absurd that so many of the rules and processes defend people like this. I wonder how much money she has cost us Devon residents so far in public inquiries, CROW reviews etc??
I have been thinking about what direct action might make a difference here, mass tresspass...maybe, but how many times and by who?? a direct boycott of her produce...again possible, but very hard to trace right through to point of sale! From your posts you live a bit closer to her, any ideas?? (assuming you would see action as an option!).
In our "free" society it is absurd that so many of the rules and processes defend people like this. I wonder how much money she has cost us Devon residents so far in public inquiries, CROW reviews etc??
In reply to Wainers44:
I don't know that a mass trespass would do anything but inflame an already volatile situation. I certainly don't think it will persuade them to change their mind.
I'm a frequent visitor to Dartmoor and the last time I was up in Vixen Tor I was disheartened to see the effort the Alfords had put in to preventing access. The barbed wire and grease has (imho) far more of a negative impact on her land than allowing public access.
I don't know that a mass trespass would do anything but inflame an already volatile situation. I certainly don't think it will persuade them to change their mind.
I'm a frequent visitor to Dartmoor and the last time I was up in Vixen Tor I was disheartened to see the effort the Alfords had put in to preventing access. The barbed wire and grease has (imho) far more of a negative impact on her land than allowing public access.
In reply to Toby S: Not sure that there is a situation to be inflamed really. She has used a system predicated in favour of landowners to her advantage and she probably feels the battle to prevent access is won. The appearance of the land isnt any issue to her...anyway I guess it looks fine from the inside, not that any of us can judge that!!!!
In reply to Iain Peters:
The Alfords make me sad. They must be very unhappy people.
oh well, can't help people who won't help themselves.
i massively appreciate the effort Iain Peters et al, have done to try and get access to this crag. Not just because the 3* route Torture has been on my wishlist for ages but because I think it really is something worth taking a stand on. They have no legitimate or ethical stance in my mind, and I hope that somehow this will be reflected in the law.
I fail to even think of a possible reason for why they wouldn't want people there, I cant see how it would even effect their lives. I'm sure if Mrs.Alfords wasn't a landowner she would be using her time just as productively writing angry letters to the BBC for the risque use of the word 'Bangers' to describe sausages before the 9pm watershed etc.
The Alfords make me sad. They must be very unhappy people.
oh well, can't help people who won't help themselves.
i massively appreciate the effort Iain Peters et al, have done to try and get access to this crag. Not just because the 3* route Torture has been on my wishlist for ages but because I think it really is something worth taking a stand on. They have no legitimate or ethical stance in my mind, and I hope that somehow this will be reflected in the law.
I fail to even think of a possible reason for why they wouldn't want people there, I cant see how it would even effect their lives. I'm sure if Mrs.Alfords wasn't a landowner she would be using her time just as productively writing angry letters to the BBC for the risque use of the word 'Bangers' to describe sausages before the 9pm watershed etc.
In reply to Kemics: Dont know the woman, but from what I have read you credit her with more moral and even belief based motivations than she seems to have. Her "efforts" are all about landownership/control/expoitation at the expense and exclusion of all others. Someone with more time on their hands and feeling a great deal more outrage about her than I can bother to muster might spend some time looking at this another way...She plays the system, so target to use it against her maybe....such as in the Planning Application it seems she has pending at the moment and maybe others to follow? Who knows, there can be more than one way to exert pressure sometimes??
In reply to Wainers44:
There are. Writing this from a small Greek Island (not Kalymnos!there are thousands of others), but thanks for the support. Actually I am quite pleased that the footpath designation was rejected. It does mean that we can now probably challenge the original decisions which concerned CRoW and the illegal improvement of marginal moorland, because ultimately the only solution will be through Open Access. In retrospect the F/P was mistaken: historically there is evidence that the whole of the VT enclosure has been used by the public without let or hindrance. That was the essence of our evidence as climbers. Counsel for the Alfords were only interested in how we accessed and left the Tor, and I can prove that a number of different entry points were used, and that we wandered freely over the whole area.
This case CAN be won, but we have to look at each so-called defeat as merely a skirmish and not lose heart.
More later.....
Iain
> (In reply to Kemics) Who knows, there can be more than one way to exert pressure sometimes??
There are. Writing this from a small Greek Island (not Kalymnos!there are thousands of others), but thanks for the support. Actually I am quite pleased that the footpath designation was rejected. It does mean that we can now probably challenge the original decisions which concerned CRoW and the illegal improvement of marginal moorland, because ultimately the only solution will be through Open Access. In retrospect the F/P was mistaken: historically there is evidence that the whole of the VT enclosure has been used by the public without let or hindrance. That was the essence of our evidence as climbers. Counsel for the Alfords were only interested in how we accessed and left the Tor, and I can prove that a number of different entry points were used, and that we wandered freely over the whole area.
This case CAN be won, but we have to look at each so-called defeat as merely a skirmish and not lose heart.
More later.....
Iain
In reply to Iain Peters:
I am shocked to learn that your case has been lost I understood that there was good evidnce re usuage. I do not understand what has happened with the RA. I am a member & have been fighting for 9 years for coastal access to be kept in our area which is subject to a recent planning permission, on the beach. See carlyonbaywatch.com for info. I am also a member of the Open Spaces Society & have received considerable support from them unfortunately the RA has been helpful but not to the same extent as OSS. I would be interested to know what the conflicting evidence was that RA withdrew because of the landowners evidence.
We have suffered similar land clearance and changes on under cliff adjoining the beach. The qualify plants were removed by the developer prior to the planning application. As you know what has gone, although well documented & photographed no longer counts. I have written to the Government about this fact that it is not a reliable way to retain land for access. As you have seen the landowner can change this simply. I even wonder if the legislation was written with this in mind because it is not difficult to image & I have fears for the future.
I regularly stay on campsite near Vixen tour & my husband & I used to be climbers as our some of our family. I am shocked and sorry to learn of this decision & will look up the reported case. You may consider joining the OSS & seek their support - they do have Sols who act for them.
Good luck Gloria
I am shocked to learn that your case has been lost I understood that there was good evidnce re usuage. I do not understand what has happened with the RA. I am a member & have been fighting for 9 years for coastal access to be kept in our area which is subject to a recent planning permission, on the beach. See carlyonbaywatch.com for info. I am also a member of the Open Spaces Society & have received considerable support from them unfortunately the RA has been helpful but not to the same extent as OSS. I would be interested to know what the conflicting evidence was that RA withdrew because of the landowners evidence.
We have suffered similar land clearance and changes on under cliff adjoining the beach. The qualify plants were removed by the developer prior to the planning application. As you know what has gone, although well documented & photographed no longer counts. I have written to the Government about this fact that it is not a reliable way to retain land for access. As you have seen the landowner can change this simply. I even wonder if the legislation was written with this in mind because it is not difficult to image & I have fears for the future.
I regularly stay on campsite near Vixen tour & my husband & I used to be climbers as our some of our family. I am shocked and sorry to learn of this decision & will look up the reported case. You may consider joining the OSS & seek their support - they do have Sols who act for them.
Good luck Gloria
In reply to La Shamster:
I've no doubt that some people live quite close.
What gets me is that so many people appear to be supporting her, either directly or indirectly, and we seem to be treating these persons as neutrals, which in practice they are not.
She (apparently) farms - her produce must therefore be bought by someone. Why can't we boycott this (or these) organisation(s) until and unless they drop her as a supplier.
She must buy food/milk/newspapers/fuel from someone - I don't want to meet her at the checkout. If we knew where she went we could choose to go elsewhere.
After a day's walking or climbing we don't want to find ourselves next to her in the pub/restaurant - again if we know her choice we can go elsewhere.
She has a solicitor who must be the legal brains behind her "arguments". If we had this firm's name out there then persons could choose who to do business with.
The professional person who cut the climbers rope early on in this saga - who wants to meet this dangerous ****. But he continues to practice as a "pillar of the community".
What about the copper who arrested him for criminal damage - which was dropped - how come attempted murder wasn't put forward.
I'd like to see these persons choose which side they're on.
If they don't want walkers/climbers/etc. then they shouldn't expect our money.
I've no doubt that some people live quite close.
What gets me is that so many people appear to be supporting her, either directly or indirectly, and we seem to be treating these persons as neutrals, which in practice they are not.
She (apparently) farms - her produce must therefore be bought by someone. Why can't we boycott this (or these) organisation(s) until and unless they drop her as a supplier.
She must buy food/milk/newspapers/fuel from someone - I don't want to meet her at the checkout. If we knew where she went we could choose to go elsewhere.
After a day's walking or climbing we don't want to find ourselves next to her in the pub/restaurant - again if we know her choice we can go elsewhere.
She has a solicitor who must be the legal brains behind her "arguments". If we had this firm's name out there then persons could choose who to do business with.
The professional person who cut the climbers rope early on in this saga - who wants to meet this dangerous ****. But he continues to practice as a "pillar of the community".
What about the copper who arrested him for criminal damage - which was dropped - how come attempted murder wasn't put forward.
I'd like to see these persons choose which side they're on.
If they don't want walkers/climbers/etc. then they shouldn't expect our money.
In reply to fred99:
Hang on. I'm as frustrated as you are about this but I really don't think we are going to win much local support by targeting local businesses. Do the Alfords actually farm in the sense of producing milk or meat? I don't know, but it doesn't necessarily follow if they are independently wealthy.
As for going for their solicitor, don't you think that everyone has the right to competent independent legal advice, whether or not you agree with them? It doesn't follow that the even solicitor agrees with them, they are just paid to make the best possible legal arguments. We just need to make better ones.
> (In reply to La Shamster)
>
> I've no doubt that some people live quite close.
>
> What gets me is that so many people appear to be supporting her, either directly or indirectly, and we seem to be treating these persons as neutrals, which in practice they are not.
>
> She (apparently) farms - her produce must therefore be bought by someone. Why can't we boycott this (or these) organisation(s) until and unless they drop her as a supplier.
> She must buy food/milk/newspapers/fuel from someone - I don't want to meet her at the checkout. If we knew where she went we could choose to go elsewhere.
> After a day's walking or climbing we don't want to find ourselves next to her in the pub/restaurant - again if we know her choice we can go elsewhere.
> She has a solicitor who must be the legal brains behind her "arguments". If we had this firm's name out there then persons could choose who to do business with.
> The professional person who cut the climbers rope early on in this saga - who wants to meet this dangerous ****. But he continues to practice as a "pillar of the community".
> What about the copper who arrested him for criminal damage - which was dropped - how come attempted murder wasn't put forward.
>
> I'd like to see these persons choose which side they're on.
> If they don't want walkers/climbers/etc. then they shouldn't expect our money.
>
> I've no doubt that some people live quite close.
>
> What gets me is that so many people appear to be supporting her, either directly or indirectly, and we seem to be treating these persons as neutrals, which in practice they are not.
>
> She (apparently) farms - her produce must therefore be bought by someone. Why can't we boycott this (or these) organisation(s) until and unless they drop her as a supplier.
> She must buy food/milk/newspapers/fuel from someone - I don't want to meet her at the checkout. If we knew where she went we could choose to go elsewhere.
> After a day's walking or climbing we don't want to find ourselves next to her in the pub/restaurant - again if we know her choice we can go elsewhere.
> She has a solicitor who must be the legal brains behind her "arguments". If we had this firm's name out there then persons could choose who to do business with.
> The professional person who cut the climbers rope early on in this saga - who wants to meet this dangerous ****. But he continues to practice as a "pillar of the community".
> What about the copper who arrested him for criminal damage - which was dropped - how come attempted murder wasn't put forward.
>
> I'd like to see these persons choose which side they're on.
> If they don't want walkers/climbers/etc. then they shouldn't expect our money.
Hang on. I'm as frustrated as you are about this but I really don't think we are going to win much local support by targeting local businesses. Do the Alfords actually farm in the sense of producing milk or meat? I don't know, but it doesn't necessarily follow if they are independently wealthy.
As for going for their solicitor, don't you think that everyone has the right to competent independent legal advice, whether or not you agree with them? It doesn't follow that the even solicitor agrees with them, they are just paid to make the best possible legal arguments. We just need to make better ones.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
It doesn't work like that and, ironically, if the the grassland had been less improved and speices-richtypical then it might have been deemed open country under CROW!
> (In reply to Toreador)
>
> In this case the owners seem to have got SSSI status partially to help prevent climbers from using them. Well this is my pessimistic view on the matter anyways.
>
> In this case the owners seem to have got SSSI status partially to help prevent climbers from using them. Well this is my pessimistic view on the matter anyways.
It doesn't work like that and, ironically, if the the grassland had been less improved and speices-richtypical then it might have been deemed open country under CROW!
In reply to Bulls Crack: Sorry but thats not the view of many comentators...see the link I posted earlier in the thread about the case. Fact is that improved or higher grade farmland is less rather than more likely to be designated AL than moorland. Many landowners latched onto this.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
What happens if walkers/climbers are talking in the pub (about this matter), after a day out (elsewhere), and then discover "the hard way" that the two "gentlemen" sitting at the next table are Alfords sons - who have a history - when they find them waiting in the car park. It could easily happen.
The land was allegedly "improved", and they claim to farm. No matter what they produce, I don't see why they should expect walkers/climbers to provide them with the money to fund their actions.
As for solicitors, read what I wrote. I said that people "could choose who to do business with". Someone might want a "sharp" solicitor, then again they might choose a solicitor based on other factors.
The whole subject of whether solicitors should be expected to have moral standards, or should instead be "amoral" with regard to their clients is something else.
Personally I find the dividing line between advancing a legal argument and just plain lying to be a very grey area - but then I'm not a member of the legal "profession".
What happens if walkers/climbers are talking in the pub (about this matter), after a day out (elsewhere), and then discover "the hard way" that the two "gentlemen" sitting at the next table are Alfords sons - who have a history - when they find them waiting in the car park. It could easily happen.
The land was allegedly "improved", and they claim to farm. No matter what they produce, I don't see why they should expect walkers/climbers to provide them with the money to fund their actions.
As for solicitors, read what I wrote. I said that people "could choose who to do business with". Someone might want a "sharp" solicitor, then again they might choose a solicitor based on other factors.
The whole subject of whether solicitors should be expected to have moral standards, or should instead be "amoral" with regard to their clients is something else.
Personally I find the dividing line between advancing a legal argument and just plain lying to be a very grey area - but then I'm not a member of the legal "profession".
In reply to fred99:
Personally I find the dividing line between advancing a legal argument and just plain lying to be a very grey area - but then I'm not a member of the legal "profession".
you also lack a concept of what it means to be professional. This isn't the place for this interesting debate. but to support Ian in his excellent efforts. Using lawyers to sort things out is expensive, what we need is serious legal advice where is sloper when you need him?
Personally I find the dividing line between advancing a legal argument and just plain lying to be a very grey area - but then I'm not a member of the legal "profession".
you also lack a concept of what it means to be professional. This isn't the place for this interesting debate. but to support Ian in his excellent efforts. Using lawyers to sort things out is expensive, what we need is serious legal advice where is sloper when you need him?
In reply to alasdair19:
Well, somehow I am a legal professional (although not a solicitor) and I don't find any difficulty in distinguishing between the best argument I can credibly offer and saying something untrue or even misleading.
Sometimes things really are less clear cut than either side would like to believe, especially where there is a key term that needs to be interpreted. For instance, deciding whether a piece of ground has been 'improved' or not, or perhaps whether a footpath has been used 'continuously'.
I'm not saying I agree with the decision, or with the Alfords' case. However, there is a difference between dishonest and being partial and I don't think it constructive to suggest that their lawyers behaved improperly.
> (In reply to fred99)
>
> Personally I find the dividing line between advancing a legal argument and just plain lying to be a very grey area - but then I'm not a member of the legal "profession".
>>
> Personally I find the dividing line between advancing a legal argument and just plain lying to be a very grey area - but then I'm not a member of the legal "profession".
Well, somehow I am a legal professional (although not a solicitor) and I don't find any difficulty in distinguishing between the best argument I can credibly offer and saying something untrue or even misleading.
Sometimes things really are less clear cut than either side would like to believe, especially where there is a key term that needs to be interpreted. For instance, deciding whether a piece of ground has been 'improved' or not, or perhaps whether a footpath has been used 'continuously'.
I'm not saying I agree with the decision, or with the Alfords' case. However, there is a difference between dishonest and being partial and I don't think it constructive to suggest that their lawyers behaved improperly.
In reply to all:
the full details of the decision regarding the footpath / non footpath should appear here very soon (right at the bottom of the list in the Devon section)
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/countryside/rightsofway/onlinerow...
the full details of the decision regarding the footpath / non footpath should appear here very soon (right at the bottom of the list in the Devon section)
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/countryside/rightsofway/onlinerow...
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...