Riding Access, Bridleways, Itinerant Keepers, Farmers and Landowners who are unreason

[Orangehorse]

The trouble with access to Forestry Commission land that most riding/driving is by permision, whether or not there is a charge for a permit. So there will be no "rights" to be maintained in any legal way. When there is talk of Access Rights that will apply to walkers, not riders, apart from bridlepaths and some Commons Rights.

 

[Spudlet]

The other issue is that current access rights are only guaranteed to be preserved in two of the four categories of woodland that DEFRA have identified in their consultation. This means that if your local wood is one of the many small woodlands that don't pull in the tourists but which are used by local people, you might end up unable to use them. This concerns me greatly.

Also, how are community groups meant to raise the funds to take over local woods in just three months in this economic climate?

Interestingly, it seems that the sale might go through at a net loss to the Treasury, and even if not one of the options now being considered is for some heritage woodlands to be managed by a new charity, set up and funded by the government... errm, remind me again how this is saving money...

 

[combat_claire]

The trouble with access to Forestry Commission land that most riding/driving is by permision, whether or not there is a charge for a permit. So there will be no "rights" to be maintained in any legal way. When there is talk of Access Rights that will apply to walkers, not riders, apart from bridlepaths and some Commons Rights.

A restrictive covenant is binding in law and can include pretty much anything the vendor likes. I came across one the other day that stated the property could not be converted into a residential property whilst the commercial property next door and owned by the vendors still operated as a factory.

As long as the vendors in this instance reserve the rights of access and indeed the sporting rights to let to Tenants as they see fit then there will be no trouble at all.

There is also the chance that a right of way can be created by accident where the path or track has been used openly and without force for a number of years, so long as the user can prove that they have been doing this then the right of way will be created by the courts.

 

[Judgemental]

A restrictive covenant is binding in law and can include pretty much anything the vendor likes. I came across one the other day that stated the property could not be converted into a residential property whilst the commercial property next door and owned by the vendors still operated as a factory.

As long as the vendors in this instance reserve the rights of access and indeed the sporting rights to let to Tenants as they see fit then there will be no trouble at all.

There is also the chance that a right of way can be created by accident where the path or track has been used openly and without force for a number of years, so long as the user can prove that they have been doing this then the right of way will be created by the courts.

Claire can you remind the forum how long one has to have used a track and to have created a right of way?

 

[combat_claire]

Claire can you remind the forum how long one has to have used a track and to have created a right of way?

For an uninterrupted period of usually around 20 years

 

[Judgemental]

For an uninterrupted period of usually around 20 years

Claire that may prove to be one of the most helpful pieces of information yet posted on this forum, many thanks.

I say that especially in the light of the piece in today's Horse and Hound about folk possibly losing the right of access over Forestry Commission land. The editor urging users and riders to speak up for their rights.

Land that could become intensly keepered! Whilst riding on the bridle ways covered in any covenant would continue, you can guarantee that 'Itinerant Keepers' will stop dogs trotting along with one out on exercise.

In fact the gravatum of the whole subject, has to yet to impact on the majority.

If is my belief that if the government do not achieve the sales envisaged, they will curtail subsidies, with action being brought forward to coincide with the 2012 Budget. This will allow DEFRA to balance their financial books in the cost cutting that they are obliged to impliment.

 

[combat_claire]

Claire that may prove to be one of the most helpful pieces of information yet posted on this forum, many thanks.

I say that especially in the light of the piece in today's Horse and Hound about folk possibly losing the right of access over Forestry Commission land. The editor urging users and riders to speak up for their rights.

Land that could become intensly keepered! Whilst riding on the bridle ways covered in any covenant would continue, you can guarantee that 'Itinerant Keepers' will stop dogs trotting along with one out on exercise.

In fact the gravatum of the whole subject, has to yet to impact on the majority.

If is my belief that if the government do not achieve the sales envisaged, they will curtail subsidies, with action being brought forward to coincide with the 2012 Budget. This will allow DEFRA to balance their financial books in the cost cutting that they are obliged to impliment.

I might be able to top that yet! Have a read of this one. We covered it at our latest land agency seminar.

http://www.burges-salmon.com/Sector...ty/Publications/New_Village_Green_Warning.pdf

Cutting subsidies will have little impact on the DEFRA budget as the money is re-claimed from European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund. What we are seeing is restrictions on those farmers being able to enter the Higher Level Scheme, which is the bigger brother of the Entry Level Scheme with even bigger environmental goods.

I heard a rumour that before Christmas Natural England were unable to make site visits as the fuel budget had run out! I also suspect there may well be staffing cuts to the Rural Payments Agency, which could really do with employing some people that have some basic farming knowledge rather than having to ask my farmers what sugar beet is or to explain the concept of overwinter fallow (does exactly what it says on the tin!)

 

[Judgemental]

Having started this thread, I feel it incumbent upon me to say, on the very day that HM Government completely dropped the notion of privatisation of Forestry Commission land, in the emergency statement made by the Minister, The Rt Hon Caroline Spelman. That she was right.

The Minister was right for two reasons, privatisation of Forestry Commission land is fraught with so many difficulties, legally and practically it is not worth the effort.

But more importantly she sent a very clear message to every landowner, "you don't have such primacy of ownership, as to disbar walkers and riders, no matter how much they may appear to be trespassing".

By that I mean the fundamental thrust of the argument against the proposed privatisation was common access.

Whilst the few (only 15,000 people out of 70 million) who own the majority of land in this country, may not like to be told, “you may own the land, nevertheless when push comes to shove in practical terms, the masses can go where and when they please, without let or hindrance”.

 

[combat_claire]

nevertheless when push comes to shove in practical terms, the masses can go where and when they please, without let or hindrance”.

This is something land agents have been aware of for many moons. There have been many well documented cases where a trespasser has injured themselves and been awarded damages against the landowner despite them having no business being on the land.

I am in favour of public access as far as bridleways and designated routes are concerned, but right to roam concerns me as it can have wide-ranging impacts on conservation and other commercial activities within the countryside. For example the recent Red Stag Review note the increasing numbers of ramblers and bikers who will not be guided by estate staff and as a result have seriously disrupted the deer herds.

A balance must be struck between effective conservation, the rights of private ownership and public access.

 

[Judgemental]

This is something land agents have been aware of for many moons. There have been many well documented cases where a trespasser has injured themselves and been awarded damages against the landowner despite them having no business being on the land.

I am in favour of public access as far as bridleways and designated routes are concerned, but right to roam concerns me as it can have wide-ranging impacts on conservation and other commercial activities within the countryside. For example the recent Red Stag Review note the increasing numbers of ramblers and bikers who will not be guided by estate staff and as a result have seriously disrupted the deer herds.

A balance must be struck between effective conservation, the rights of private ownership and public access.

Claire for the most part we tend to agree, however you do have a habit of taking parts of what I say and not quoting the entirety.

I said, Having started this thread, I feel it incumbent upon me to say, on the very day that HM Government completely dropped the notion of privatisation of Forestry Commission land, in the emergency statement made by the Minister, The Rt Hon Caroline Spelman. That she was right.

The Minister was right for two reasons, privatisation of Forestry Commission land is fraught with so many difficulties, legally and practically it is not worth the effort.

But more importantly she sent a very clear message to every landowner, "you don't have such primacy of ownership, as to disbar walkers and riders, no matter how much they may appear to be trespassing".

By that I mean the fundamental thrust of the argument against the proposed privatisation was common access.

Whilst the few (only 15,000 people out of 70 million) who own the majority of land in this country, may not like to be told, “you may own the land, nevertheless when push comes to shove in practical terms, the masses can go where and when they please, without let or hindrance”.

Therefore I was not saying there should be a right to roam, nor do I agree with the fool, who goes where plainly it is ill-advised and then encounters a hazard upon which he or she sustains injury and takes a suit against the landowner.

What I said was and I will try and put it in terms of the laity.

The government bowed to the pressure from the multitude over access on FC land. Because amongst other things there would be a mass protest on the land when it was sold to Private Land Owners. Thus there would have been an automatic blighting or diminution in value. Therefore where a PLO to find themselves with a large number of people wishing to go where they please, there is nothing they could do about the matter. Not that any great mass of people propose to invade any estate, so far as I am aware.

Therefore the point I was making was that landowners have to remember, that the way in which ownership of the majority of land is in the hands of so few. They the few cannot do anything about the many who could just gather together and invade.

Thus landowners should take heed of the climb down by the government and treat the public (the masses) with very great care and consideration.

That includes individuals who might not ride in quite the right place or path etc. But they the rider or walker, does have the power to bring the masses 'upon a visit to the estate' if they put their mind to the project. Indeed the power of the Internet publicising a mass invasion of an estate could be easily facilitated.

So the moral of this, if you are a landowner. From now on, be very nice to those who traverse your estate, on foot or horse. Don't come the high and mighty, master of all I survey, I'll set my keepers etc on you……...

Do you now understand what I was saying?

The government has said we respect and bow to the wishes of the majority when it comes to access to land and so should PLO’s.

 

[Judgemental]

This is something land agents have been aware of for many moons. There have been many well documented cases where a trespasser has injured themselves and been awarded damages against the landowner despite them having no business being on the land.

I am in favour of public access as far as bridleways and designated routes are concerned, but right to roam concerns me as it can have wide-ranging impacts on conservation and other commercial activities within the countryside. For example the recent Red Stag Review note the increasing numbers of ramblers and bikers who will not be guided by estate staff and as a result have seriously disrupted the deer herds.

A balance must be struck between effective conservation, the rights of private ownership and public access.

Claire for the most part we tend to agree, however you do have a habit of taking parts of what I say and not quoting the entirety.

I said, Having started this thread, I feel it incumbent upon me to say, on the very day that HM Government completely dropped the notion of privatisation of Forestry Commission land, in the emergency statement made by the Minister, The Rt Hon Caroline Spelman. That she was right.

The Minister was right for two reasons, privatisation of Forestry Commission land is fraught with so many difficulties, legally and practically it is not worth the effort.

But more importantly she sent a very clear message to every landowner, "you don't have such primacy of ownership, as to disbar walkers and riders, no matter how much they may appear to be trespassing".

By that I mean the fundamental thrust of the argument against the proposed privatisation was common access.

Whilst the few (only 15,000 people out of 70 million) who own the majority of land in this country, may not like to be told, “you may own the land, nevertheless when push comes to shove in practical terms, the masses can go where and when they please, without let or hindrance”.

Therefore I was not saying there should be a right to roam, nor do I agree with the fool, who goes where plainly it is ill-advised and then encounters a hazard upon which he or she sustains injury and takes a suit against the landowner.

What I said was and I will try and put it in terms of the laity.

The government bowed to the pressure from the multitude over access on FC land. Because amongst other things there would be a mass protest on the land when it was sold to Private Land Owners. Thus there would have been an automatic blighting or diminution in value. Therefore where a PLO to find themselves with a large number of people wishing to go where they please, there is nothing they could do about the matter. Not that any great mass of people propose to invade any estate, so far as I am aware.

Therefore the point I was making was that landowners have to remember, that the way in which ownership of the majority of land is in the hands of so few. They the few cannot do anything about the many who could just gather together and invade.

Thus landowners should take heed of the climb down by the government and treat the public (the masses) with very great care and consideration.

That includes individuals who might not ride in quite the right place or path etc. But they the rider or walker, does have the power to bring the masses 'upon a visit to the estate' if they put their mind to the project. Indeed the power of the Internet publicising a mass invasion of an estate could be easily facilitated.

So the moral of this, if you are a landowner. From now on, be very nice to those who traverse your estate, on foot or horse. Don't come the high and mighty, master of all I survey, I'll set my keepers etc on you……...

Do you now understand what I was saying?

The government has said we respect and bow to the wishes of the majority when it comes to access to land and so should PLO’s.

The Minister's exact words at the Dispatch Box in the H of C today were, "I want to move forward in step with the public". No mention of Land Owners there.

Can't help wondering where that leaves any hope of a repeal of The Hunting Act either.

 

[tootsietoo]

I cannot make head nor tail of that last post JM! It sounds as if it could be interesting, but I can't work it out. How can the government back tracking on privatisation of the FC influence the way landowners behave towards trespassers?

 

[Judgemental]

I cannot make head nor tail of that last post JM! It sounds as if it could be interesting, but I can't work it out. How can the government back tracking on privatisation of the FC influence the way landowners behave towards trespassers?

It's very simple. Over 1,000,000 (one million) people signed a petition in 21 (twenty one) days telling the government they objected to the proposal to sell off FC land. Their objection was largely on the grounds that adverse access was anticipated once in private ownership.

If a Landowner - from now on gets uppty, develops an inflated sence of their own importance, by for example, ordering walkers off land which is not a footpath and similarly with riders and non-bridleways etc. Or the favorite thing is to fence, block paths, tracks etc.

Those walkers and riders having been upset, now know that they only have to protest and threaten a mass invasion of the land, to make their point. This government clearly has no mood or stomach to support landowners in the face of the masses. Otherwise they would have pressed ahead with the sale of FC and not taken any notice of the petition.

What you don't seem to realise there are only 15,000 land owners for 80% of the open land on these islands, with a population of 70 (seventy) million.

Ask yourself, who holds the power over the land.

 

[Judgemental]

It's very simple. Over 1,000,000 (one million) people signed a petition in 21 (twenty one) days telling the government they objected to the proposal to sell off FC land. Their objection was largely on the grounds that adverse access was anticipated once in private ownership.

If a Landowner - from now on gets uppty, develops an inflated sence of their own importance, by for example, ordering walkers off land which is not a footpath and similarly with riders and non-bridleways etc. Or the favorite thing is to fence, block paths, tracks etc.

Those walkers and riders having been upset, now know that they only have to protest and threaten a mass invasion of the land, to make their point. This government clearly has no mood or stomach to support landowners in the face of the masses. Otherwise they would have pressed ahead with the sale of FC and not taken any notice of the petition.

What you don't seem to realise there are only 15,000 land owners for 80% of the open land on these islands, with a population of 70 (seventy) million.

Ask yourself, who holds the power over the land.

The masses have found, probably for the first time, that a mass protest works where land is concerned! Frankly if I were a land agent on one of the large estates, I would be very concerned.

Whilst I am commenting, there is the directive for DEFRA to make massive cuts in expenditure - selling FC land was a major plank in those cuts.

My guess is that the Minister will recognise the power of the masses and simply say, money for grass margins and environmentally friendly hedges and verges. Tough, farmers and landowners are not the majority, I have to make cuts, so your subsidies are going to be stopped - somewhat sooner than anticipated.

This little episode over FC land, particularly with a Coalition Government is really very interesting.

If I owned over 1000 acres of farm land, I would put anything over that figure immediately up for sale, tenanted or in hand. The government has to make cuts and land is a massive asset to be tapped into by the Chancellor.

But I hear you say, these landowners are the friends of the government. You mean the Conservatives. The Conservatives are not the government it is a Coalition and Coalitions are full of surprises. Mr Clegg and his friends have very little time, in fact none atall for large scale farming or landowners.

By the way Claire, I am professionally grounded, trained and experienced to comment on such matters.

 

[Alec Swan]

I'm wondering if I'm the only one to think that the sale of forestry land, owned by the State, would have been a good thing.

Much of the land administered to by the FC, is already in private ownership, and has been since the inception of the initial planting. The bulk of such land has always been open to public access.

Attempts have been made, by many, to make forestry operations, a profitable business. It never has been, and it never will be.

Those land owners, who would view forestry land, as a shooting asset, very soon learn that they are waisting their time. The large and established shoots find that "the forestry" aspect of their holdings, are more of a liability. There are those who attempt to hold shoots within planted areas, but as all the winged game, which we shoot, lives a natural existence, but on a varied landscape, provided by woods and fields, then dense forestry, is not too their liking.

Those vast blocks of forestry, on the Scottish Borders, and in private ownership, are invariably owned by those who have purchased such land, in a move to avoid paying tax. Not all, I accept, but the bulk of such tracts have always been open to public access.

The Forestry Commission has always been a huge and unwieldily liability to the tax payer, and if we are to make savings, then I for one, would have happily seen them sold on. The only benefits to society, in my view, being the ethical aspect of established woodlands, and the access, so often enjoyed. I fail to see how it makes one jot of difference, who actually owns the land.

Being sold, with a right to public access, would have been a relatively simple condition to have established, and would have saved the tax payer, a great deal of money.

Alec.

 

[Judgemental]

I'm wondering if I'm the only one to think that the sale of forestry land, owned by the State, would have been a good thing.

Much of the land administered to by the FC, is already in private ownership, and has been since the inception of the initial planting. The bulk of such land has always been open to public access.

Attempts have been made, by many, to make forestry operations, a profitable business. It never has been, and it never will be.

Those land owners, who would view forestry land, as a shooting asset, very soon learn that they are waisting their time. The large and established shoots find that "the forestry" aspect of their holdings, are more of a liability. There are those who attempt to hold shoots within planted areas, but as all the winged game, which we shoot, lives a natural existence, but on a varied landscape, provided by woods and fields, then dense forestry, is not too their liking.

Those vast blocks of forestry, on the Scottish Borders, and in private ownership, are invariably owned by those who have purchased such land, in a move to avoid paying tax. Not all, I accept, but the bulk of such tracts have always been open to public access.

The Forestry Commission has always been a huge and unwieldily liability to the tax payer, and if we are to make savings, then I for one, would have happily seen them sold on. The only benefits to society, in my view, being the ethical aspect of established woodlands, and the access, so often enjoyed. I fail to see how it makes one jot of difference, who actually owns the land.

Being sold, with a right to public access, would have been a relatively simple condition to have established, and would have saved the tax payer, a great deal of money.

Alec.

Alec - a voice that I had hoped would be heard.

I agree with you. However "with right of access". The problem is and a perceived worry by many that the 'Public Acesss' would have been eroded.

You also mention the shooting, do I recollect in previous posts you have an interest there?

Shooting in large forestry is undoubtly difficult. The old 19th century Belts are far better to drive with rides cut at intervals and having guns standing either side. To create that in prime forestry that would have been sold, would undoubtly been opposed.

It is a very interesting subject and from a political point of view we have a) seen the masses taste their 'first blood' and b) we have seen the colour of this government - at the first sign of contention and protest they roll over, c) I might be wrong but this government or it's type might be in power for a very long time, because they make proposeals that are unpopular and then either give up or dramatically water them down, with mass pressure.

Where does that leave Repeal - frankly I don't think there is a cat's chance in hell of it ever happening.

If this caste of government had been in power when the marches in London took place there, never would have been a ban.

As I have said earlier, large landowners are going to be in for some unpleasant surprises with this Coalition, because they are so few and the masses will now be looking to see, where they can score over the great estates. Notwithstanding the Chancellor looking over the hedge and wondering how all those acres could yield funds for his coffers.

Of course this in many ways is left wing Labour dogma, but you never quite know in which direction Libdems are going to fly - they are rather like Snipe!