The Nab and an access issue

[Percy]

Hi Tim,

Perhaps I am incorrect but isn't The Nab (routing from Rest Dodd) totally within Open Access land?  Therefore, surely it doesn't matter what the opinion of Dalesman Estates is, you can go there whenever you like providing you remain within the Open Access land. 

It was early March when I went, there were lots of deer but they soon ran off when I approached.  I walked along The Nab from Rest Dodd because of its colour coding illustrated on my map.  There are no additional notes to the contrary saying it is accessible within certain times of the year, so I don't see how they can dictate to people when and where you are permitted.  Just a thought

Cheers
Lee

You’re right about it all being access land save the approach from the road.


With approach from the road and the route straight up the nose ruled out I guess the Rest Dodd and back way is the only sensible one left.


Approaching from the east means going to to the top of a ridge, losing all the altitude, and going back up the Nab. I’m not sure many would choose that.

[happyhiker]

Happyhiker - "You are permitted to climb over walls or fences to get into, out of, or across open access land, as long as you don’t damage them."

Quote taken from the paragraph above "Restrictions" HERE


Hope that helps 




pdstsp - I also think you did the right thing, as frustrating as I'm sure it was     It does seem a little odd though that you can roam all over the fell from the south to north, stopping short of "their land".  In reality, what difference would another couple of hundred feet make to get to the road?  I'm sure you're just as likely, if not more so, to see deer on The Nab as in the valley 

Thanks for that. Interesting.

[Lakeland Lorry]

Happyhiker - "You are permitted to climb over walls or fences to get into, out of, or across open access land, as long as you don’t damage them."

Whilst the above quote is correct, this doesn't really apply in the case of The Nab because you have to cross private land to get to the open access land.   You can see this private land if you go to the Natural England CROW maps and type The Nab in the place name box.  The private land is shown in white and the open access land in yellow.


http://www.openaccess.naturalengland.org.uk/wps/portal/oasys/maps/MapSearch


I remember that prior to the CROW Act, which came into force in 2000, the whole of The Nab was theoretically out of bounds, because it doesn't have any rights of way running across it.   The Nab was then registered as Open Access Land, but the Dalemain Estate for their own reasons, decided not to include the area north of The Nab as CROW land.   I suppose that, whether you agree with it or not, it's their land and if they want it to remain private, then they are entirely within their rights to do so.

[barewirewalker]

   I suppose that, whether you agree with it or not, it's their land and if they want it to remain private, then they are entirely within their rights to do so.

Not unless there is a lostway that gave access to the Nab prior to the creation of the definitive map and could be proved.


This is one of the reasons the landowners and their pressure group are so keen to see 2026 pass by without people waking up to the extent of the corruption of the Definitive Map.


A little background that only myself seems to understand; why did the CLA change their adviser on access from a person who seemed to be of a land agent background to lawyer. This was a couple of years prior to their publishing the CLA 'common sense' policy on access, in 2012, but their previous spokesmen had written that "landowners might have to give more access than they could get taken away" to reach an understanding.
This phrase cropped up in articles written by the Vice President of the CLA, Harry Coterrell but when he became the President of the CLA that published the policy on access that phrase had disappeared.
By this time Sarah Slade a lawyer was established as their adviser on access.


Land agents would be well familiar with 6 inch per mile OS maps of the areas the administer, and these were printed on plates created pre-1949 and show all footpaths in detail, even those crossing gardens to outdoor privies. A land agent is far more likely to be aware of the corruption of the Definitive and not be so eager to cover it up on moral grounds, whereas a lawyer will follow the text of the law, even if social injustice is a factor against their clients interests.

[Mel]

Whilst the above quote is correct, this doesn't really apply in the case of The Nab because you have to cross private land to get to the open access land.   You can see this private land if you go to the Natural England CROW maps and type The Nab in the place name box.  The private land is shown in white and the open access land in yellow.

Aye, I realise that LakelandLorry     I was specifically replying to happyhiker's question which mentioned a locked gate leading onto a RoW.  I'd hazard a guess that plenty of folks would chance their arm crossing a short expanse of private land to get to/from open access land.  Unfortunately it seems like the Dalemain Estate are quite, ahem, protective, over their little patch of private land 






BWW - if you had been faced with the situation pdstsp found himself in, how would you have handled it?

[April]

Unfortunately it seems like the Dalemain Estate are quite, ahem, protective, over their little patch of private land 

It might be because they let out The Bungalow as a holiday cottage? At £650 - £1380 per week they may want to keep the likes of pdstsp (understandable) away from disturbing the people staying there?

[pdstsp]

It might be because they let out The Bungalow as a holiday cottage? At £650 - £1380 per week they may want to keep the likes of pdstsp (understandable) away from disturbing the people staying there?

Oi - and I thought you were nice  .

[Peter]

Happyhiker - "You are permitted to climb over walls or fences to get into, out of, or across open access land, as long as you don’t damage them."

Quote taken from the paragraph above "Restrictions" HERE


Hope that helps 

It helps me a great deal, thanks. I've often been stymied from going where I wanted. Trouble is I'm not really capable of climbing anything. 

I have come across anomalies in relation to Access Land. For example, did a walk in the Malham area across such land. Followed an obvious track down to a gate to exit on to a ROW, to find it chained and padlocked. I easily climbed over it but did wonder what the legal position is. It cannot be reasonable to wander round the perimeter of such land in the hope of finding an unlocked exit. This could be a considerable distance, not to mention the detour adding miles to a walk. There is no way of knowing in advance which access/ egress points are open.


Any thoughts?

I recently did an approach to Ingleborough that involved a locked gate. I'd been put off for years because of this. (I hate breaking rules, almost as much as I hate the rules being imposed in the first place).
I had checked my maps in great detail, visited the site looking for a 'legal' access. The path is on the map, the land is open access, the gate is a very big one and is locked.
Then a few weeks ago I was thinking about it, and picturing the design of the gate. One section is about 1 foot wide and 'laddered'. It was very difficult for me personally but doable. The problem being my dog. Basically I had to drop her on the other side.


I get very angry at the way we have been robbed of our land and how we are prevented from walking it. The lands were all stolen and I would support any government that would repossess them.

[barewirewalker]

I get very angry at the way we have been robbed of our land and how we are prevented from walking it. The lands were all stolen and I would support any government that would repossess them.

I sympathize, the probable cause of the estate's attitude is the person I mentioned in my previous post. For a period of time I had access to the CLA's monthly magazine, this time coincided with the run up to their publishing their policy on access. Their adviser on access, lawyer Sarah Slade, has toured the country addressing meetings of landowners, holding workshops and publishing articles on the need to prevent the creation of new rights of way.
When I was on the then 'Shropshire Local Access Forum', I was sitting next to a member, who represented the interests of the BHS and had sat on many of the national committees, where the interests of access for horse riders coincide with that of walking. To one reference of a 'de facto' way closure, I muttered under my breath, "according to the gospel of Sarah Slade". My neighbour's reaction was surprising but he told me  that Sarah Slade, a member of many committees, he had served on was the queen bee of anti access.


As walkers we observe the countryside code, there is not a balancing code that requires the occupiers of our countryside to be aware of how their occupation affects the rest of society. There must once have been such an understanding, because how did footpaths get started in the first place.


The CLA's current policy attacks the very principle that created many of the ways on which our access network is based and mapped in the early 4 editions of maps published by the Ordnance Survey.

[Mel]

It might be because they let out The Bungalow as a holiday cottage? At £650 - £1380 per week they may want to keep the likes of pdstsp (understandable) away from disturbing the people staying there?

I wonder if residents of the holiday cottage are allowed across the bit of private land and up The Nab 


.... forum meet anyone? 

[barewirewalker]

BWW - if you had been faced with the situation pdstsp found himself in, how would you have handled it?

I think I would have handled it very much as described, however I would have, as described, tried to probe the landowner or his minion on the estates reasons and motives.

1.) Their motives of going against an apparent public need for access at this point and was it driven by the points I have previously mentioned.

2.) The need for good PR between agricultural producers and there very loyal customer base and this being jeopardized by the self-interest of property owners.

3.) The vulnerability of any rural commercial identity relying on sales on the internet getting into conflict over access issues.

4.) The expanding importance of the leisure industry and it's complex structure of interests being in conflict with outdated notions of privacy and privilege.

Many of these points and more had their origination on the conflict between property and access prior to the Scottish Land Reform Act, but landowners have forgotten it.  The more simple objectives identified in that affair may be masked by a more complex and disparate set of issues in England and Wales, but they  may be a very heavy cost in the future if they are not recognized.

I think the OP did well to voice his concerns here and describe this incident, just how important access to The Nab is at this point I do not know. Could there be a safety issue, as there is a bridge to the bungalow over the Rampsgill Beck? Were there old access rights for grazing on the higher ground, the geography would suggest that there could have been.

[Mel]

 

[ninthace]

On the other hand, while it is common to see deer in that area they are constantly being disturbed by walkers so it is good for them to have an area to lie up in peace. The fells between Ullswater and Haweswater are a wonderful area to walk in during the rut, especially late evening or early morning when the stags are roaring.

[vincebowdren]

It sounds like the Dalemain Estate take their job of looking after the deer herd seriously. So from their point of view, they're not considering the case of one walker; they're choosing between two policies:


1. letting anybody walk up the road and onto the Nab
2. only allowing access through the Access Land


Policy 1 would end up with much more disturbance to the deer, so they're following policy 2 instead. I don't see a problem with that - and to be honest, if you were "aware that there are access issues" then I don't think you should have planned that route in the first place.

[Mel]

... if you were "aware that there are access issues" then I don't think you should have planned that route in the first place.

Why not?  Not all paths on the ground are marked on a map.  Sometimes you just don't know if there is a viable path until you walk there.  So long as you're prepared to retrace your steps if no such path appears or, as in the OP's case, are asked to do so, there's no harm in planning a route "just to see what's what"