Did they Trespass...or not

[ninthace]

I do not agree with the way BWW goes on about the "landed gentry" but have any of you seen this.


https://www.cla.org.uk/rural-organisations-join-forces-proposal-amendment-highways-act-1980


In case you don't want to read the article they basically want to be able to "temporarily" close ROW's if cattle are present.

I think they use the word "divert" rather "close" which would find favour with the cow avoiding lobby.  IIRC this proposal started from the NFU.  It is the thin end of the wedge though.

[pdstsp]

Agreed, thin end of the wedge.  I treat anything coming out of the CLA as self-interst driven.  I wonder how quickly they would all reinstate ROWs when livestock had been moved Off?

[barewirewalker]

I do not agree with the way BWW goes on about the "landed gentry" but have any of you seen this.


https://www.cla.org.uk/rural-organisations-join-forces-proposal-amendment-highways-act-1980


In case you don't want to read the article they basically want to be able to "temporarily" close ROW's if cattle are present.

I think this article is the CLA equivalent of a report in the British Farmer from last March I posted;

The means of providing alternative ways should have been thought up 50 years ago when the traditional beef and dairy breeds of the UK were being increased by continental breeds.
From last March;
IMO too late and too little discussion on the ways and means of implementation. As usual the blame is firmly in the person of the landowner, they have persuaded the NFU that they deal with matters of Land Management and the NFU is responsible for production matters. The reluctance to admit that any alternative ways other than those RoWs established by the 1949 Act has been ignored.

There is no mention of any safety recognition in the CLA policy on access published in 2012 and heralded as common sense. How much common sense can be contained in a document that is not based on any proper research of history and modern day trends.

The policy is the right way forward, but I agree with PDSTSP treat anything tha comes from the CLA as self interest driven. Ninthace is right to draw attention to the word 'divert', but if voluntary safety codes had been published 30 or 40 years ago this could have been done with out recourse to law change. By pointing out the alternative way and making it viable the farmer would have been showing showing a voluntary safe alternative, therefore absolving any H&S liability.
The CLA have been paranoid about forming permissive ways since the 2000 CRoW act. I think the origination of this has come from the NFU lobby, how the law is written needs to be watched as CLA come with self interest driven by individual selfish attitudes.

[Andies]

This discussion and indeed others herein have got me thinking about what it is that shapes the thinking of landowners towards access?
I think it maybe fear of the unknown. In years gone by the landowner would probably know all the locals, employ many of them, even house some, and would know what they did and why they were going where they were. There was nothing to worry about aside from an odd rogue who would be known by all as such. Strangers would stand out and an eye kept thereon. Hence I suspect there was less concern if any about someone taking a shortcut to reach the pub, church or shops. Trespass wasn't an issue aside from some poaching.
Move forward to today. Rural communities with little employment in agriculture, workers traveling to nearby towns, local shops closed, churches little used and village life all but gone in a community sense.
The result is landowners potentially divorced from the people living nearby, and now seeing those on little used rights of way as strangers, someone to be watched, a potential threat. Consequently many would rather we weren't there at all.
It doesn't have to be that way of course. By way of personal example: a sparsely populated rural parish a couple of miles from me is largely owned by one landowner and has a wealth of good walking on rights of ways. We have walked this area for many years and from an initial acknowledgement from a passing watchful landrover to a brief conversation with the landowner  about what we were doing and where we were from, progressed to friendly greetings and conversations over the years. Eventually to the point that I asked and was given permission to cut pea sticks for my allotment from one of the landowners woods. We had gone from being strangers marching across his fields up to goodness knows what to being no threat at all. Indeed I am quite sure if I asked him the landowner would probably let me walk anywhere on his farmland.
Compare this to a couple of landowners in another local village I approached about a mile long dead end footpath that crossed their land. I asked about a possible rerouting in exchange for a 400 yard extension to allow an onward continuation of way that obviously historically existed. The first landowner responded but only to say they had discussed it but no. In this case the landowner was also a district councillor so was engaged with the community. The other landowner, notorious for being anti access to the point of threatening and who plays no part in the community never even responded if even to just tell me to go away.
I think the conclusion I have reached that it is only through engagement with landowners either personally or by membership bodies can we reassure them that we aren't out there up to no good, but rather that we are an asset. More responsible eyes and ears on the look out for those that are really up to no good.

[barewirewalker]

A thoughtful post, Andies, I too, Shortwalker disputes many of my posts because of;

I do not agree with the way BWW goes on about the "landed gentry".

But it is not the individual I go on about it is the corporate identity as illustrated by the examples of individuals.


Some years ago a rights of way officer suggested I read 'This Land Our Land' by Marion Shoard. The book drew my attention to the dependency of landowners on social status, in the past this went hand in hand with quantity of land and titles, it was supported by the level of employment land provided.


Today we have moved away from much of this social strata, very few countryside dwellings are now occupied by those dependent on agriculture, as you rightly say, yet the respect expected by the landowner is reflected by their corporate reluctance to recognise the asset value to the country of access to the countryside.

I think the conclusion I have reached that it is only through engagement with landowners either personally or by membership bodies can we reassure them that we aren't out there up to no good, but rather that we are an asset. More responsible eyes and ears on the look out for those that are really up to no good.

Do we have to reassure them? Should they not reassure us that they are spending the grants they receive properly, should they not be trying to earn respect rather than to expect it? Your examples of latter form of landowner reflect the very principle of landownership being promoted by Sarah Slade the CLA's legal advisor for access.


If landowner's feel threatened by access from criminal activity they are assuming that all visitors are criminals, if I am automatically assumed to be a wrong doer I do not feel inclined to buy produce from someone holding such discriminatory views. Nearly every criminal activity that threatens the countryside and it's dwellers would be controlled by socially responsible witnessing, yet the idea that the large majority law abiding people that access might introduce are not held in respect.

[ninthace]

I have to agree with Andies analysis.  In the last 10 years I can only reacall 3 "bad" experiences.  One was a keeper, not the owner, who pointed out I was trespassing and asked me to leave (he was right - I was trying to shortcut through a small island of private land surrounded by Open Acess Land).  The second was a householder who had set up his own illegal diversion round his property and inisted I used it.
On the other hand, I have lost count of the number of times I have been greeted and held friendly conversations with property owners, tenants and employees.  I have alluded to this before but I think the outstanding experience was hopping over a stile into somebody's garden virtually landing on the owner.  I apologised for the intrusion but he said he was grateful to see me - I was the first person he had had a chance to talk to for ages.

[barewirewalker]

Similarly I have had many more friendly conversations in the countryside than confrontation. Actually confrontations are few, yet you only have to read between the lines of corporate policy to find the real intentions.

I had many friendly conversations with the landowner of over 2000 acres south of the Longmynd, Shropshire, who evicted me off the LAF, when he became chairman. There is a disused railway line that runs through the estate his family has owned since Domesday (Literally). It links Craven Arms to Bishop's Castle and could have taken a lot of the cyclist pressure off local ways that has caused ongoing trouble in the area. The public way that was opened up stops abruptly at his land. He also has an Iron Age fort within his land called Billing's Ring, access to which would not occur within his lifetime (his own words to me), it is a recognized tump or hump and there are description on line from those, who have bagged it. I showed lack of respect by suggesting that such objectives were the learning ground for young walkers, unable to reach the more remote objectives of older peak baggers.

Andies posts always show good sense and it is important to try to understand how landowners think. All editorial from that quarter is scrupulous in the acceptance of the status quo, but it stops as abruptly as the Craven Arms rail line way did at a landowners boundary despite a few being in favour of the overall idea.

It is quite clear to me from many of my conversations with farmers and landowners that the publications of Sarah Slade's policies on access and other editorial behind the closed doors of internal publications has put a firm stop on any progressive growth of access for both safety and reaching new destinations.

[Andies]

I fear that this discussion may like a number of others on the forum now have run it's course. The usual contributors by large in agreement, but what if anything do we take forward from this?
I have no doubt that others, as I hope I do, make some impact on access by our actions, be that by engaging in both direct intervention on issues we come across and also the more general promotion of access in the manner of our conduct. But how much difference will we as individuals make and doesn't it require a more coordinated approach by groups representing access such as the Ramblers?
Is it not time for them to sit down with others such as the CLA and find a way forward that benefits all, and in so doing addresses the misunderstandings of the past?
Perhaps I am getting into the realms of fantasy here but surely this is the way intelligent people proceed?

[Eyelet]

The Ramblers Association have a current position on this issue, (but probably not yet on the new CLA et al proposal): https://www.ramblers.org.uk/policy/england/rights-of-way/rights-of-way-and-cattle.aspx


The RA Policy team can be contacted by email at: [email protected]

[barewirewalker]

I fear that this discussion may like a number of others on the forum now have run it's course. The usual contributors by large in agreement, but what if anything do we take forward from this?
Perhaps I am getting into the realms of fantasy here but surely this is the way intelligent people proceed?

Only if we cannot see a way of increasing the language we use to talk about these issues.

Did our ancestors Trespass when they created the footpath network we walk today?




Am I right in thinking, 'If we look at how our rights of way came into being, we might learn how to refute some of those assumptions used by those opposed to opening up our countryside'.
Is the footpath from Sidnal N to Cross House S an anomaly or is there a logical, historical explanation?

I believe that there is a sound historical reason for the above anomally, yet walkers fall themselves to come up with the easy answers to dismiss this, just as the landowners use simple poorly reasoned instances to pedal their interpretations of the reason people walked through our countryside.

Andies has opened a post about the Ramblers, perhaps they should be listening more to the ideas discussed outside of their membership. If they encouraged a critical approach of the  established landowner ideas, perhaps the weakness of the long held beliefs might start to be exposed.

[Jac]

Andies has opened a post about the Ramblers, perhaps they should be listening more to the ideas discussed outside of their membership.

Perhaps, though members might justifiably expect a more listening ear and consequently more action/results

[Andies]

Perhaps, though members might justifiably expect a more listening ear and consequently more action/results

Yes indeed, this is exactly my point

[barewirewalker]

Perhaps, though members might justifiably expect a more listening ear and consequently more action/results

Not too sure, who should be listening to who. Last suggestion I sent to our county council's Great Outdoors liaison Group, where a lost way should have been considered as justifiable cause to have a right of way considered over a farm service bridge. The two rambler members meekly accepted the bureaucratic explanation, never uttered a word although I had made a case that supported extensive increase to access and commercial benefits to tourism. I don't think they had even read the question published in the minutes, passed it up for advice (within the rambler's) prior to the meeting or even understood any deeper meaning in the facts laid out.

[barewirewalker]

Recently discussed this phenomenon elsewhere;
The Offset Path effect is a phenomenon found more on old maps, though some have been transferred to the OS maps, as explained to me by a RoW Officer as a slip of the Definitive Map!! Yet the real explanation lies in the micro geography of the locations. This is an example; Near Nescliff in Shropshire, Starting from the road in Kynaston, ending SJ 35826 20078. There is no apparent reason as the lane is level with fields and has a hard surface. You have to imagine a time when hardcore was not easily transported and a heavy clay topsoil had been cut down to the bedrock below the level of the water table. Take into account the footfall of the overall pedestrian way is indicated by the destination and the gathering power of the way then the level of public pressure will create an offset pavement effect.

It can be viewed on Google Earth by pasting: 52.77445, -2.95272  The footpath is in the field parallel to the lane and is supported by the walk furniture and waymarks. It was explained to me by the council as an anomaly due to inaccurate surveying but the early OS maps are too often very precise about the detail of how the offset path deviates from the road.

An interesting point about this example is it lies exactly on a line drawn from the mouth of the Tanat Valley exiting Wales and the end of the Sandstone escarpment at Nescliff, showing the point of joining the A5 route to London.


Link for streetmap; https://www.streetmap.co.uk/map?x=335826&y=320078&z=0&sv=SJ3582620078&st=5&mapp=map&searchp=ids click the next bar above on the zoom control for 1:25k OS map.

[RamblingG]

I cannot speak for the accuracy of the surveyors but the map makers are a bit liberal with reality.  A couple examples just from yesterday.
The red trace in the image below is from my gps which is pretty reliable.  Compare the trace with the path shown. The path from the start, is shown running along inside the edge of the wood, which is correct and my trace shows where the line of the path actually is, which means boundary of the wood is wrong.  The path emegres from the wood around the second green diamond.  It then drops left back into the woodland but leaves again immediately after crossing the stream, as per the trace, rather than continuing in the wood as the OS would have it. [nofollow]

In the second example, the PROW path rejoins the road where my trace shows it does, not where the OS says it does, and there is a gate in a wall to prove it. [nofollow]

I had a look on GoogleEarth at your path.  While there is a line of gates parallel to the road there is no weakness in the hedge at the S end.  The old railings buried in the hedge are in the wrong place, i.e. on the wrong road to be an overgrown exit and why on earth would you have a footpath parallel to a perfectly good lane.  Mayhap the lane was once a trackway that served as a footpath before it was metalled.  I prefer the clerical error theory, perhaps it was plotted in the wrong place and assumed to be parallel route.

The real question on the top picture is why did you walk around in a little triangle shape just above the contour line?