UKC

I saw this article on the continued proposal of changes to access rights to Dartmoor this morning and I thought it worth sharing. 

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/dartmoor-could-ban-group-barbecue... 

There is a lot of stuff in there that appears rather a good idea depending upon your viewpoint - defining backpack camping, limiting group sizes, further clarifying drone usage, making sure that dogs are on leads, etc. 

But, as this blog from the wonderful John Bainbridge points out, the worrying aspect is that under the proposed changes to the bylaws the DNPA is giving itself the authority to change the boundaries of the backpack camping areas without requiring a change in the law. 

https://walktheoldways.wordpress.com/2021/09/12/why-im-defending-dartmoors-... 

The above combined with the Nasty Party's continued attacks on access/camping rights (as well as a load of other really horrible stuff - https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2839) makes it, in my view, a worrying time for hard won access rights in England. 

What are your thoughts? 

Any idea where the actual wild camping changes are detailed?

There's a map in the Devon Live article, but admittedly it is not particularly clear, I can't find any mention of the above on the DNPA site or on https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/dartmoor-national-park-authorit...

At least wild camping camping is allowed within certain limits on Dartmoor. And enforcement is another issue

Oh absolutely, that's a very positive thing. I suppose that it is the potential for changing this that is concerning. In my view at least. 

https://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/400800/2021-09-03-A...

It's buried in the back of here. Page 63 shows the camping proposals.  

Good find. Thank you very much 

https://maps.Dartmoor.gov.uk/proposal_map/

Map

Someone is finding this for me! 😁

"· Camping is only permitted in single person bivouacs or in 2-person tents that can be carried in a backpack and in groups of no more than six people. This byelaw does not apply to agreed expeditions who have written permission from the landowner and the Authority"

Define a 2-person tent, I guess?  Most tents for two are nominally three-man.

I think the old one:

"6 Camping
No person shall knowingly use any vehicle,
including a caravan or any structure other than
a tent for the purpose of camping on the access
land or land set out for the use or parking of
vehicles except on any area which may be set
apart and indicated by notice as a place where
such camping is permitted.
No person shall knowingly erect a tent on the
access land for the purpose of camping:
(a) in any area listed in Schedule 2 to these
byelaws;

(b)within 100 metres of any public road or in
any enclosure.
No person shall camp in a tent on the same site
on the access land for more than two
consecutive nights, except on any area which
may be set apart and indicated by notice as a
place where such camping is permitted."

...is better.  Nobody is going to carry a family frame tent 100m.

Unfortunately some people have done some daft and irresponsible things this year.  I have seen a couple of frame tents out on the open Moor, so maybe a change to that is needed? However going to 2 man tents is daft. DofE and Ten Tors fall foul of that. And stating that they will allow exceptions doesn't cover the training for those things. Their approval process is also rather akin to having toe nails pulled....slowly.

Anyone paying attention could also see the problems coming this year. The most significant on moor campsite, at the Plume in Princetown didn't open and in the context of all the extra demand you could see what would happen. Chaos. DNPA should have been ahead of that and supported other arrangements being made?

I would love to think the consultation would be effective,  but previous experience would suggest otherwise. 

They'll take a sack trolley. Festival style.

New Forest NPA is also running a consultation process about changes to access to the forest.

It seems pointless to me, unless its actually enforced. People break the current bylaws all the time. Roadside camping and campervans are prolific.

Even the little enforcement they do isn't thought through. Twice this year at around 10.30am while sat drinking a cuppa in the doorway of my van while wearing running gear I have been challenged by DNPA Rangers. Pretty flipping obvious that I hadn't been there all night.

Yet I have never seen the rangers touring the carparks at 0800 full of vans with window reflectors and furniture outside to move them on. 

Should we consider, perhaps, following the US in pushing for the use of "wag bags" to carry out human waste from national parks rather than burying it (or just leaving it as some do)?

This bit concerns me about school trips too... if the permission process isn't easy for schools then it'll kill off valuable experiences for kids. This is where educating them in responsible wild camping happens.

Though I suppose they'd argue that a max of 6 people in any one place is responsible wild camping (which probably is about right, though I reckon I'd go 8).  It doesn't say you can't have multiple groups away from each other.

The tent thing is silly, though.  I guess they have tried to define hike tents, but in reality school and Scout groups will often pack 3 into a Banshee 300 or similar (with two carrying bits of tent and one carrying the stove and gas) so this really does need to be allowed.

I guess it depends if the supervising staff member counts in the group of 6! which is where I think 8 would also help... but if the permission for school groups is easy then it'll work without trying to bend rules like how far apart separate groups need to be.

Scouting "rules" would suit 8 too.

I can't help think that when the whole thing proves to be unenforceable, that will lead to a slide into yet more onerous restrictions. For example...

So I turn up at xxx (not giving my camping locations on here!!) late, and it's dark and blowing up a storm. I camp 20yrds from some tents already there, because I have to as there is no other shelter, a common situation on the moor. I have no idea how many people are in the tents. DNPA arrive the following morning and then decide to fine both me and the 6 original occupants of the tents as we are in breach of the Bylaw. So the others, unaware of my late arrival are liable to be fined too? We are a "group", or are we, and how far apart do we need to be?

There needs to be a review and problably some change. However to consult on something so flawed and poorly considered is pretty pathetic IMHO.

Good point - the maximum group in "Terrain 1" or "Terrain 2" (basically WGL and ML territory respectively) for a Scouting group is 8, typically 2 adults and 6 young people, and such groups are not supposed to be within sight or earshot of another such group to avoid confusion about who is responsible for who (which has caused serious incidents in the past hence the rule).

I wonder is Scouting making a representation about this?  It'd be a minor change.

The whole "group" thing is so vague in these proposals. 

Given that these are amendments not a new document and your objections are pedantic and would apply to the existing wording I would say they are a reasonable starting point for consultation. 

I imagine if somebody camped next to you while you were asleep you could argue that you did not 'do' anything outside the byelaw although it might well be a long legal process and hard to prove, which might be why they haven't tackled it. If you have a better idea why not reply to the consultation and help them instead of expecting a legislative masterpiece from a small authority

Well your idea of pedantic is very different to mine

Pedantry once the base principals are established after consultation is one thing,  but ensuring that you are putting together a coherent and considered document for consultation in the first place isn't being pedantic. 

Who needs a masterpiece? Not me. And if you bothered to read the thread you will see I am up for change as it is needed.

If you want a set of rules or bylaws that are respected they need to start by making sense, be clear, and that way they will be followed. Real enforcement will be hard enough, so why make it even harder.

In what respect do the amendments not make sense? Your objections are just how they will be enforced, which is currently the case e.g. you sitting in your van drinking coffee in the morning without having slept there. Regulating behaviour that is difficult to evidence beyond all reasonable doubt is difficult. If somebody actually in breach of the byelaws appealed using your excuses they would probably win. That does not mean the byelaw was wrong. This is why you are being pedantic

Instead of calling people pathetic, why don't you write to them explaining how you would word it so it is more enforceable whilst not risking unfair penalties against innocent parties. Having sat on the other side of the table I can tell you that your attitude of scorn rather than helping makes life pretty miserable for some underpaid, overworked employee

Again, try reading what I said. I didn't call anyone pathetic.  It's more that something so important should be following a more careful process and not come across as something that is being rushed out. Alternatively,  go for total blank sheet of paper consultation? I assume you have looked at the proposals and the map.

And as for being sat on the other side,  as far as I am concerned I'm not. What's regrettable is that as someone who loves the moor, it feels like this is heading towards being an opportunity missed. Where is the encouragement coming back to be involved? Maybe that comes on the 20th? However read the article linked by the OP and people who know far more about this than me (and you) are seriously concerned that the will to  consult properly isn't there.

Thanks for the advice on what I should do next.  I will be contributing and taking a continued interest in what happens here. The moor is too valuable to do anything else.

Great thread.  One important fact, is that folk can wild camp pretty much any place on Dartmoor, as they do in Snowdonia and the lake district. As long as they are descreet and gone early no one is at all likey to disturb them or lock in them up.  The changes to the rules merely empower the park authorities to sort out those that cause a nuisance. They are very unlikely, IMHO, to change a thing for responsible wild campers. It is a shame though that beautiful spots, like Believed forest next to the Dart, have to be included. But unfortunately the beauty a accessibility of that particular area is much of what has brought about this whole issue.

Great to see Dartmoor National Park Authority in the mood to review the land on which camping is permitted. There are large swathes around Princetown, Two Bridges, Postbridge and others that are currently excluded. I'm looking forward to making the case to DNPA for including new areas in permitted camping, such as these, as well as objecting to the exclusion of existing areas. 

That's a great approach Pete. Funnily enough I'd just finished a run on Dartmoor and popped into the Devonshire Inn for a soda while waiting for the bus back. In there I met a lovely chap who was part of a conservation group working on Dartmoor.

He seemed in favour of the proposals largely due to the antisocial behaviour seen on Dartmoor from individuals in/after lockdown. I completely understand his viewpoint and it must be so frustrating to be cleaning up /repairing damage caused by the mindless few. What I worry though is that this reasonable annoyance will be used to push through legislation that has the potential to remove the freedoms we enjoy without proper consultation.

Very much in the same way that politicians present intrusive bills as a way of ensuring security against terror/protesters/etc.

Great to read all your views above, loads of interesting information in there. 

Right, if I hear things correctly the document linked here might not be the one to be consulted on soon, so need to look carefully at what is issued. That may well be because even DNPA thought their first attempt was poor.....

They're trying to separate wild camping (small groups, away from the road, leave no trace) from fly camping (often large groups or congregations of several, not far from the road, noisy, leave a mess). There's been similar problems in Scotland even before covid. Not an easy problem but something needs to be done to protect the moor from abuse.  

Mixed feelings. The right to roam was a hard won right but in the modern internet and social meeja world, too many people take the p**s. I believe in the original intent of such camping rights - couple of blokes in a tent in the middle of nowhere, behaving responsibly 'taking nothing but photographs, leaving nothing but footprints'.

Too many people, too many cars, access too easy, too little responsibility. Regrettably, I reckon subtle changes are needed and the proposals seem to highlight car parks and road access areas.

Living in Cornwall and having just been upto the highlands after many years, I wish all the tw*ts in camper vans leaving shite all over the place would just eff off home. And I know I was a tourist in Scotland though it pains me to say it - we saw locked up picnic sites around Fort William due to too much litter, fires and general arsehole behaviour. Can't wait for Costa del Sol to open up so they can all go there again.

Family tents are loads lighter and more portable than the frame tents of the 70's nowadays.  A 6 man Vango airbeam weighs 15kilos according to a quick google.

Exactly. And don't forget us locals have to look at damage to ancient wooded areas that have taken hundreds and a thousand years to make. Poo and burning and litter and damage. Not to mention bloodied dead sheep and lambs from many times from many times dogs have been left to wander off lead by irresponsible holiday makers. Great thanks. Lets roam outside your street and do the same. You'd be up in arms. We live here. 

New poster, registered TODAY. I ask you ....

By the way, people from the countryside DO roam in my street. Not only that, but they DUMP their cars - usually requiring TWO spaces to put their singular vehicle in - and wander off to a pub, the cricket ground or the racecourse. Then when they drive off I'm sure they're over the limit.

Reason they park here - to avoid the Police.

Aussynick, living in the middle of Dartmoor, presumably in a tent...

I call troll.

There are many villages on dartmoor, it's rural. If you want to ramble please do. Just don't destroy. Ps why the need to troll. Have you seen slaughtered sheep. Do you get your pay taken away randomly by someone visiting your workplace? That's how a sheep owner feels. How is parking alike to destroying ancient woodland by tearing it up and setting swathes of moor on fire, irreparable.. 

Those calling you a troll are wholly against those selfish actions that destroy both the environment and wildlife.

What we do query however is why a brand new poster should appear in such a manner, particularly as recent history has led us to expect some anti-vaxxing drivel (or similar) to appear next from such newcomers.

If you are a previously existing poster - then why have you come up with a new identity ?

If you are completely new to UKC, then how come you feel the need to post quite so quickly on a matter with complicated undertones ?

Giving this one a bump.

Consultation closes on 1st Nov.

We will be discussing this at the BMC SW area meeting on Tuesday (details on the BMC website).

Last week of consultation. 

The website links you to a survey monkey and in part at least this will be a numbers game, so if you care about these changes then please take the 10mins or so to comment.

If this goes through as proposed the impact will be very serious. For instance, no vehicle to be occupied before 0900 or after 2100? Goodbye to enjoying that cuppa after an early run, or after a big long day out. 

The catch all of having to comply with any request made by a Ranger is an interesting one too. ^Sorry sir, weather looks a bit dodgy so I don't want you to start your walk today..". Ridiculous? Probably.

However, how about "....morning sir, landowner has told us they might be moving their stock in the next few days so if you could stay off this part of the moor until next weekend....".

There are also significant impacts on local organisations,  like the pony club who won't be able to erect tents for events, on their own land, without DNPA permission. 

Sorry Wainers, being a bit slower than normal this morning, which website is this? The DNPA one? Are you able to share the link?

Good work on noticing and posting though. 

Have they changed it mid flow?  When I did the survey it didn't mention times for vehicle occupation.

If so that is very sharp practice indeed.

https://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/about-us/who-we-are/byelaws-consultation

That's the link to the consultation.  The 0900 to 2100 occupation thing is definitely in there, or was when I did it a week or so ago.

I attended the Army briefing for Ten Tors Team Managers a few weeks back and someone asked the DNPA chap specifically about it. It's a very relevant question,  as the proposal means we could be fined for simply sitting in a car waiting for a group of youngsters to arrive at a checkpoint. The DNPA chap didn't answer the question.  Apparently he didn't hear it. Odd that the other 350 of us in the room did?

Of course the Ten Tors is an event requiring permission anyway.  It would be more of an issue for a small DoE group.

In theory don't dofe groups need permission to use any access land anyway since it's a commercial activity?

But I think there is a bit of a trap there. TT  even if permitted in terms of numbers isn't exempt from any of the other byelaws as far as I can see?

Done.  Thanks for the reminder.

It's a pointless exercise, those who are inclined to follow the rules/ behave responsibly whilst operating slightly outside the rules will be persecuted and feel they are doing wrong when they aren't and those that are inclined to take (and leave) their disposable tents and BBQs will continue to do so. 

All this hand wringing will change nothing. Re-wild the moors with a few apex predators and we'll see who really enjoys being outdoors and who uses it as an excuse to be a cvnt in the countryside.

It's mostly not a commercial activity.  There are some commercial providers, though.  Scouting for instance runs it internally, as do many schools (though I suppose an academised school is sometimes commercial and sometimes charitable).

Pretty much everything else is "unless permission is gained from the landowner and park authority".  TT will absolutely be gaining that permission as a major event.  And I think it's quite right that major events with large numbers of participants do, on any access land, as it prevents major events spoiling things for other users, or at least controls it by e.g. stopping 2 trail marathons taking place on the same bit on the same day.

Furthermore, in practice, unless another park user paid the significant cost of a private prosecution, the only prosecutor will be the National Park Authority, so in practice they can waive any of it themselves.  Just like they don't with e.g. the Railway Byelaws, the CPS isn't going to get involved.

Sorry I didn't say what I meant clearly enough. TT is a major event and rightly needs permission as it involves more than 50. That requirement in effect has always been there. We were told that training for TT is likewise permitted. 

None of that gives permission for you to breach any of the other byelaws. You still abide by them, its just that as a group of 50+ you have consent to be there in the first place.

The other proposed rules, occupation of cars, groups limited to 6, smaller permitted camping areas etc all still apply.

I don't think any of this should simply come down to whether DNPA decide to prosecute or not. How will that help, and as others have said what will actually happen is that the positive activities of those of us who respect the moor will be curtailed,  while the litter louts and party goers will just ignore the rules. 

Fair byelaws,  openly enforced is the only way to deal with the problem.

That is definitely not how I read the intention.  Rather the intention is that the Byelaws outline what is allowed by default, but by permission of both the landowner and National Park any of them may be waived, this is how it is pretty much everywhere else. 

There would be no benefit to the National Park of doing otherwise.  They don't gain anything from a prosecution other than stopping something they don't want being done (which they would not give permission for anyway).  It is just that the means of putting this sort of regulation in place for a statutory body is a Byelaw.

Of course they likely won't give permission for very large group sizes, but they clearly are going to for things like occupying vehicles belonging to Ten Tors marshalls overnight, say.  The intention of the vehicle thing is very clearly to prevent sleeping in vehicles, but the hours (which I think are a bit unreasonable) are probably based around ease of enforcement rather than having to go round doing it at 3am. 

The railway is not dissimilar in that regard.

I don't believe they legally even need to consult on this - that they are doing clearly shows to me that there is nothing underhand nor conspiratorial about this at all.

If you read through the full byelaws it's a bit of a mess. Certain things, as you say, can be allowed by the National Park AND the landowner, assuming you can work out who that is. Oddly that applies to flying, drones, metal detectors and exercising racehorses!

However it doesn't apply to the parking or vehicle occupation Byelaw. The camping byelaw is poorly worded as the "permission" bit is mentioned in one term, but not the rest. In any case,  like you said earlier, even if Ten Tors is permitted,  DofE isn't.

We all get the intention but the proposals just aren't the answer. One stat I saw in the local paper which came from DNPA under FoI request was that their Rangers noted 350 breaches on just one of the byelaws over the last 2 1/2 years. There wasn't a single attempt to prosecute or legally enforce. 

I think currently they are required to Consult,  hence one of the changes being to remove this in future.  I think conspiracy is a strong term and no idea why you referredto that.,  More than anything I am just disappointed that they seem to have got this so wrong?

That stat very much reassures me.  It sounds rather like they would first have a word, and only if met with abuse rather than an apology and compliance throw the book.  That sounds good to me.

Trouble is, if that was working, then fine, but it isn't. 

I can't think of a similar example where increasing totally unenforced laws has been found to be the the best way forward.

This year the worst places have been the ones easy to predict. Cadover Bridge, Belliver, Venford and others I could name.  A nice big story of campers being fined early in the summer, with the word then being spread on social media would have massively reduced the problem. Instead, we now have hundreds of little corrugated plastic signs pinned to every post near every layby which are ignored and are now slowly disintegrating into the environment.

This year was a bit exceptional.  As the troublemakers return to two weeks on the cheap in Faliraki with Sleasyjet or Eireflop, normality should start to return.

You still have time to respond to the consultation if you wish, it is closing on Monday 1st November. 

Link to the consultation here: https://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/about-us/who-we-are/byelaws-consultation 

The BMC website has an article about this  - https://thebmc.co.uk/dartmoor-byelaws-consultation this includes a link to the BMC's response should you wish to see it. - This was discussed at the recent BMC SW area meeting.