Walking Forum

Main Boards => General Walking Discussion => Topic started by: Andies on 15:26:03, 04/12/20

Title: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Andies on 15:26:03, 04/12/20
Thinking about Suffolk's rights of way, some questions:

1. What is about 3,563 miles in length?
2. What is about 1,918 miles in length?
3. What happened just six times in 2020 and three times in 2019?
4. What needs to happen by 1 January 2026?

Any answers? (Sorry no prizes just a smug satisfied feeling to the first correct response  :D )
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: rural roamer on 17:13:43, 04/12/20
1) Well I know there’s over 3500 miles of PROW’s in Suffolk so I’ll say the total length of all PROW’s
2) The length of lostways in Suffolk
3) The number of times footpaths were reinstated
4) The date by which lostways have to be registered


I guessed the last three  ;D
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Andies on 11:40:41, 06/12/20
Well done rural roamer almost exactly the answers I was looking for  O0
You of course have the advantage or disadvantage depending on how you look at it of being a fellow resident of Suffolk, and being familiar I suspect with some of the issues we face.
Questions 1 & 2 you were spot on. Question 3 the figures of 6 in 2020 and 3 in 2019 were actually the number of applications for definitive map modification orders. That is applications not actual ROW added, so in practice they might not be successful  :-\
And finally question 4 you are right this is as it stands the cut off date for getting historic lost way added to the definitive map, but the answer to my mind is we need a miracle to achieve this.
My reasoning is that if the Ramblers lost way project gives us an estimate of the numbers involved, and say the average right of way is half a mile long (a quick guesstimate on my part) then there could be upwards of 3,800 applications that are needed by 2026. Given that Suffolk's right of ways department has only had nine applications in the past two years, and that most of them are yet to be considered, how on earth can the system deal with the potential number of applications that would be needed  :-X
The reality is of course that they won't be that many made because the system is structured in a way that makes it very difficult to make the claim successful, and those who understand this won't put the claims in as it would be a waste of time and effort.
The result is that these routes are lost for ever. The corruption of the past seventy years is completed. Hopefully more will eventually wake up to what is happening but I fear interest is minimal in the general public, and those who should represent us are all to often influenced by the other view or worse still are the other side  :(
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: rural roamer on 22:11:02, 06/12/20
Not sure where you are in Suffolk Andies, but this article has just been published in the local paper
https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/suffolk-ramblers-working-to-map-local-paths-1-6953059 (https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/suffolk-ramblers-working-to-map-local-paths-1-6953059)


Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Andies on 15:42:43, 07/12/20
I'm in the West rural roamer so hadn't seen the article. It sums the situation up very well, but the devil is in the detail!
John Andrews has given me some very welcome assistance in recent years on a few things, and indeed on a long running project I am still working on at present. Hopefully this will come to something but as he said to me: "I warn you it may end in nothing but frustration".
This is of course the big problem that it is very difficult under the current system to get these routes onto the definitive map. Very often the evidence just isn't there, and after 50 years of work John has previously said in the Suffolk Ramblers newsletter, that he doesn't think there are many more routes to be gained by the historical evidence approach. Equally because of what has happened over the past seventy years many routes don't present with user evidence either, as sadly the old users thereof are long gone.
That is why I think the whole approach needs a change if there is any chance of realistically getting these lost ways onto the definitive map, but the Ramblers don't appear to be pushing for that, but rather accepting the current system. That's where I differ in my thinking, and why I posted this little quiz, hoping others might see the flawed thinking given the number of claims that would be needed to achieve this against what has been the recent level of claimed modification orders. I think the numbers speak for themselves but I seem to be something of a lone voice thereon  :(
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:47:55, 08/12/20
Not much I can help with from Suffolk. though there is some recognition that lostways exist in My county of Shropshire. It can be seen here; https://shropshire.gov.uk/committee-services/documents/s16199/ROWIP%20Network%20Assessment%202017%20Amended.pdf
Is this a one off approach? Or is it a proforma document used by all councils, who have at least recognised there are such things as Lostways. The progression of understanding goes as far as an apendage; https://www.shropshire.gov.uk/media/10847/appendix-2-network-assessment-2017.pdfhttps://www.shropshire.gov.uk/media/10847/appendix-2-network-assessment-2017.pdf
But is does not reach any imaginative progression beyond the providing the graph on  page 3 linking amount of access to population density. This holds the key for speculating the type of development that should link the needs of local walking to long distance walking. For all the rights of way in Shropshire it still has a distinct absence of good X county ways in relation to the terrain it has to offer.

Is there is anything that helps to compare a your counties approach to this? Even with the chunk taken out by the Telford Corporation in the 1960's it is still the largest landlocked area, and could provide some excellent corridors of countryside for crossing, yet which ever direction you choose they are flawed, by assets not being made available by occupiers, who choose to ignore opportunities under the direction of their professional body.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: BuzyG on 15:24:19, 08/12/20
The result is that these routes are lost for ever. The corruption of the past seventy years is completed. Hopefully more will eventually wake up to what is happening but I fear interest is minimal in the general public, and those who should represent us are all to often influenced by the other view or worse still are the other side  :(


To play Devils advocate for a moment.   The vast majority of people never knew these paths existed and will not care the least bit that they are lost, never to be travelled again by the general public. They have other things to do with their modern lives than walk old forgotten routes, when there are modern routes they can drive along and get there more quickly and efficiently.  Loosing these paths forever is, alas, not going to impact their lives very much at all. It will be a sad day for a pretty small minority of us truth be told.   :(
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: barewirewalker on 16:04:28, 08/12/20
An example in my county on how some short lengths of lost way can open up a countryside corridor of many miles. Posted 14 months ago. (http://www.walkingforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=39284.msg561606)
Evil Prevails When Good Men Fail To Act.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Andies on 16:06:16, 08/12/20
Is there is anything that helps to compare a your counties approach to this?
I cannot recall seeing anything like this for Suffolk but that doesn't mean it's not out there. The Suffolk ROWIP follows a very politically correct route and certainly doesn't offer the type of starting premise that your first link does for Shropshire. I suspect Shropshire benefited from being one of the five pilot counties for the Natural England project. That said I thought the evidence gained from the five pilots was that it indicated that the problem of lost ways was so significant that the project was abandoned because there was insufficient resources to pursue it?
Suffolk CC did undertake a review of the definitive map and potential lost ways in 1979 but following a change of government the review couldn't be completed and consequently was abandoned.
BWW it may just be me but your other links gave error messages so I couldn't look at them as well.

To play Devils advocate for a moment.   The vast majority of people never knew these paths existed and will not care the least bit that they are lost, never to be travelled again by the general public. They have other things to do with their modern lives than walk old forgotten routes, when there are modern routes they can drive along and get there more quickly and efficiently.  Loosing these paths forever is, alas, not going to impact their lives very much at all. It will be a sad day for a pretty small minority of us truth be told.   :(
I wouldn't disagree with what you say but I have found that when you actually explain to people what has happened with the corruption of the definitive map people do become more interested. If only enough could be sufficiently motivated I really think progress could be made, and that is why I keep banging on about it  :D  
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: barewirewalker on 12:21:43, 10/12/20
An interesting passage in the text of the Shropshire document on lostways and improvements (https://www.shropshire.gov.uk/media/10847/appendix-2-network-assessment-2017.pdf) about anomalies in the Definitive Map.

Quote
The only way to resolve these issues is to research how they came to be   recorded and if sufficient evidence is discovered, p ublish legal orders to alter   the definitive map.  
 

This is interesting because the writer is the Mapping and Enforcement Team Leader and is an admission that the compilers of the DM got it wrong. From a recent conversation with a member of the SGOLG formerly LAF, I learnt that there was little if no rights of way issues included in the agenda despite the Rambler's recent survey. The chair of this forum is a landowner placement, so no discussion leads to no constructive ideas being formulated. Yet their is a sign that a member of the bureaucracy has managed to insert a fulcrum into a document that is part of policy formulation, the trouble is the Rambler members have not placed a lever over this fulcum.

Suffolk may be on the opposite side of the country to Shropshire, but Frinton-on-Sea to Portmadoc may well appeal to someone, I have read some more way surrealistic routes on this forum over the years.

This same writer refers to progress coming from Agricultural support, yet it is Landowner opposition that is the real cause of no improvement. As a good public servant, open criticism would be impossible, yet it was a person in a similar job 20 years ago, who first told me of the Corruption of the DM, it is up to all to realize that these public servants need support, by bring the true culprits out into the open.
Keep it up Andies


   
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Andies on 14:28:00, 10/12/20
Thanks BWW I will certainly keep trying to awaken interest in the subject, whether people like it or not.
It is probably not surprising given our similar views that the words you quoted above also jumped out at me when I read the Shropshire document. As you say they hint at another way forward much as I frequently promote. A proper understanding of how we arrived at the current situation should frame the direction going forward.
Unfortunately despite the overwhelming evidence of seventy years of corruption of the definitive map, the answer seems to be, according to the Ramblers, to carry on with that system until 2026.
I would hope for something different but that doesn't seem to attract much support  :-\

Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Bigfoot_Mike on 14:35:53, 10/12/20
Andies and BWW, have you tried raising a petition about corruption of the map on the government website? If you get enough people signing up, it could be debated in parliament.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Andies on 15:24:53, 10/12/20
Andies and BWW, have you tried raising a petition about corruption of the map on the government website? If you get enough people signing up, it could be debated in parliament.
It's an idea I hadn't thought of Mike, although I wonder how effective such petitions are in reality?
It might raise some awareness of the issue amongst those unfamiliar with the problem, but without interested parties then taking this forward in parliament is there any hope of change?
I would be very sceptical of gaining any support from my local MP given her background, or indeed the current government  :-\
My great frustration is that organisations such as the Ramblers, who you would expect to be at the forefront of the debate seem reluctant to pursue things in a way other than the current system. They have the data from their lost ways survey but rather than calling out why this happened, just want to fundraise on the back of it, and then proceed using the same corrupted system.
It makes little sense to me but then as Mrs A says I'm not like other people  :D
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: barewirewalker on 16:36:04, 10/12/20
Andies and BWW, have you tried raising a petition about corruption of the map on the government website? If you get enough people signing up, it could be debated in parliament.
Some more work would be needed in bringing awareness to the rank and file of walkers to make it effective. The lack of editorial on the subject in general is very disappointing, the popular press and media would need to wake up to the good stories that are there to be sourced. No one used the term "Corruption of the definitive map" to me, even though it was a rights of way officer who told me about the causes and consequences inherent in the flaws, anomalies and black holes. After 15 years of using this term much to the annoyance of other forum members, it is just starting to be used by others.

Just for the record I ran a topic called "the Corruption of the Definitive Map" on the Ramblers old forum before coming here. I was curious if this rather obvious judgmental term had been used before. No takers then and few supporters now. My inside knowledge was a land agent, who lived in a grace and favour house on the Berwick Estate a few fields away from the farm I grew up on. Of course, then that knowledge meant little to me, 60 + years later a lot of memories of local gossip and characters start to fall in place.

There are other C's that combine to make intriguing stories about this Corruption (1), starting with Cause (2), leads to Consequence (3), which has a Cost (4), in turn should generate Criticism (5) and then Condemnation (6) that leads to the door of the CLA, who think it is common sense to limit the amount of access, even reduce it. At the same time trying to bury the evidence of the corruption.

When programs like Countryfile start to refer to the Corruption of The Definitive Map, then would be the time for a petition because our MP's could not ignore it.
Perhaps nearer to 2026, when the press will be looking for column inches on the subject, so perhaps now is the time for a few more walkers to start gossiping about this iniquitous legacy with further facts and examples.

I for one would be eager to read them.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Bigfoot_Mike on 17:37:08, 10/12/20
I think you need a snappier title than Corruption of the Definitive Map, as that means nothing to most people. How about starting one on open access or saving lost footpaths for the public (or our grandchildren)? You need something that will attract interest and attention. Sell the sizzle and not the sausage.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Andies on 17:51:16, 10/12/20
Perhaps the petition approach might attract some interest if lead by the Ramblers referring to the findings of their lost way project for example?
Separately I think I might just contact my MP and see if they buy into "the corruption of the definitive map". I'm doubtful of a positive response but it would be interesting to see what they say. I will hopefully post something about this in due course.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: rural roamer on 18:02:42, 10/12/20
As you’re in West Suffolk your MP isn’t Matt Hancock is it? I think he may have other things on his mind at the moment!
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: barewirewalker on 19:52:05, 10/12/20
I Sell the sizzle and not the sausage.
It's the waft of the sizzle that has the real essence of the story.  From Palmer Tomkinson's barrier to Lord Newborough's bridge, have been trying to tell the story of the fat and wealthy denying you choice morsels of the countryside.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Andies on 20:23:21, 10/12/20
As you’re in West Suffolk your MP isn’t Matt Hancock is it? I think he may have other things on his mind at the moment!
No Matt can concentrate on other things, I will be writing to Jo Churchill as I come under the Bury St Edmunds constituency.
When I said West I was thinking of the county of West Suffolk. I am old enough to remember when we were independent  ;)
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Bigfoot_Mike on 22:23:08, 10/12/20
It's the waft of the sizzle that has the real essence of the story.  From Palmer Tomkinson's barrier to Lord Newborough's bridge, have been trying to tell the story of the fat and wealthy denying you choice morsels of the countryside.
Again, if you want to be heard then you need to get the message right. Do you want to bring to attention the possibility of regaining rights of way, or do you want to satisfy yourself by slagging off the landowners? Pick one of the two. You will get very few people to listen to both. If you are clear and concise and focus on the benefits, you are much more likely to gain support.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: shortwalker on 01:46:53, 11/12/20
If you want to bring change, you need to try and get everyone on board. Going on about corruption (I know there are different meanings, but I have little doubt, most will think of it in monetary terms) and it's all the CLA's fault will achieve nothing.


As I am originally from Suffolk (on the edge of the broads)  I do have an interest in this.


(shouldn't really need to mention that, but some on here just think I deliberately try to stir things (trolling I thing they call it)) ;D
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Peak on 08:19:40, 11/12/20
As you’re in West Suffolk your MP isn’t Matt Hancock is it? I think he may have other things on his mind at the moment!
[/quote
The only thing on his mind Is trying to make his mind up.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Andies on 11:20:09, 11/12/20
Again, if you want to be heard then you need to get the message right. Do you want to bring to attention the possibility of regaining rights of way, or do you want to satisfy yourself by slagging off the landowners? Pick one of the two. You will get very few people to listen to both. If you are clear and concise and focus on the benefits, you are much more likely to gain support.
You make a good point about getting the message right, but it is very difficult to explain why you want to regain those rights of way without first explaining why you need to? IMO the need to is caused by the "corruption of the definitive map" or to be more politically correct the fact that a system to establish this has unfortunately been subject to difficulties over the past seventy years. The problem then comes in explaining why those difficulties arose; was it perhaps due to errors or possibly something that was manipulated by interested parties  :-\
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Bigfoot_Mike on 11:49:37, 11/12/20
You make a good point about getting the message right, but it is very difficult to explain why you want to regain those rights of way without first explaining why you need to? IMO the need to is caused by the "corruption of the definitive map" or to be more politically correct the fact that a system to establish this has unfortunately been subject to difficulties over the past seventy years. The problem then comes in explaining why those difficulties arose; was it perhaps due to errors or possibly something that was manipulated by interested parties  :-\


I don’t think there is a need to explain in detail all the ancient history. The benefit of getting better access to the countryside  is what needs to be sold in my opinion. You could then add that we need to act quickly to ensure that the footpaths aren’t lost. The vast majority of people will have no interest in long explanations of what went wrong. They will want to know what’s in it for me and what do I need to dots get it. Any campaign needs to have a clear focus on what it wants to achieve and the to remove all unnecessary clutter that takes attention from the main objectives.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Andies on 12:35:17, 11/12/20
If you want to bring change, you need to try and get everyone on board. Going on about corruption (I know there are different meanings, but I have little doubt, most will think of it in monetary terms) and it's all the CLA's fault will achieve nothing.


As I am originally from Suffolk (on the edge of the broads)  I do have an interest in this.


(shouldn't really need to mention that, but some on here just think I deliberately try to stir things (trolling I thing they call it)) ;D
As far as I am concerned you can stir things up as much as you want shortwalker. I have a thick skin in case you haven't noticed and respect your alternative view point even if I often disagree with it  ;)
The difference we have in our views on the way forward is probably not so great I suspect, but we clearly place different emphasis on what has lead to the current position. As a former resident of Suffolk (that possibly explains a lot  :D) I do wonder why you are so forgiving of those who have put us in the current position; should they not be held to account in some way?
Did you read the link I placed on another thread hereon ("an interesting read") specifically with reference to John Andrews account of his years as a Ramblers footpath officer in Suffolk. I thought it made a number of very significant points that should IMO frame our thinking and approach going forward? To what extent did his story match, if at all, your experiences of walking in Suffolk?
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: shortwalker on 14:31:53, 11/12/20
As far as I am concerned you can stir things up as much as you want shortwalker. I have a thick skin in case you haven't noticed and respect your alternative view point even if I often disagree with it  ;)
The difference we have in our views on the way forward is probably not so great I suspect, but we clearly place different emphasis on what has lead to the current position. As a former resident of Suffolk (that possibly explains a lot  :D ) I do wonder why you are so forgiving of those who have put us in the current position; should they not be held to account in some way?
Did you read the link I placed on another thread hereon ("an interesting read") specifically with reference to John Andrews account of his years as a Ramblers footpath officer in Suffolk. I thought it made a number of very significant points that should IMO frame our thinking and approach going forward? To what extent did his story match, if at all, your experiences of walking in Suffolk?


To be honest I never had an issue walking in Suffolk (mainly  Suffolk/Norfolk border) I just walked the paths that were/are on the current OS map. To be honest I certainly didn't then and don't to any great extent look at where ROW's may have been.   


  I did take to (not altogether) peaceful protesting when the local golf course wanted to limit our use of common land. So, I am not some, "doff my cap" to the gentry type. But I do strongly believe that if you want to make progress in this or any other subject you do have to look at it from the "other side" as well. Whilst I accept that history is important, you don't make progress whilst raking up the past. (Hence why I take issue with BWW so much)


As for holding people to account, you would need to define that to me. Because where do we stop? My grandfather was a tenant farmer, because in the mist of time, they were prevented from accessing land they owned, by the squire. so their fields became baron and they had to sell to the squire. (It did make parents evening interesting, as for one year my form teacher was the daughter of the squire) Should that squire now be "held to Account"


Should the landowners in Scotland be "held to account" for the Highland Clearances. Should we be "held to account" for Slavery etc.


I am sorry but to me, the use of "held to account" for historical issues is just another "buzz" word.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Andies on 17:12:46, 11/12/20
By held to account I am really only talking about acknowledging why we have the problems we do with the definitive map. Whilst I can think of a few who might benefit from a public flogging for their past actions those days are unfortunately long gone even in Suffolk  ???
Shortwalker you didn't say what you thought of John Andrews story, assuming you took a look. I would be interested to read your take on it or should this just be dismissed as history?
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: shortwalker on 18:36:34, 11/12/20
By held to account I am really only talking about acknowledging why we have the problems we do with the definitive map. Whilst I can think of a few who might benefit from a public flogging for their past actions those days are unfortunately long gone even in Suffolk  ???
Shortwalker you didn't say what you thought of John Andrews story, assuming you took a look. I would be interested to read your take on it or should this just be dismissed as history?


To be honest I haven't read it, I looked at it and just found it was about horses. Maybe a more direct link would have helped.


You perhaps read me wrong, I am not saying we should dismiss history, just that harking back to a time (that usually suites the writers own narrative,) doesn't usually move us forward.


An example of what I mean, is that the world hails Nelson Mandela as the man who made post apartheid South Africa. The role that F.W de Klerk played in moving South Africa forward is largely overlooked. (it was de Clerk who released Mandela, it was de Clerk who legalised the ANC (previously it had been regarded as a terrorist organisation))  But both of them whilst acknowledging the past, had to find ways to move forward. Whilst clearly not on a world stage, the same principles apply to any negotiations of this sort.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:08:55, 12/12/20
The difference we have in our views on the way forward is probably not so great I suspect, but we clearly place different emphasis on what has lead to the current position. As a former resident of Suffolk (that possibly explains a lot  :D ) I do wonder why you are so forgiving of those who have put us in the current position; should they not be held to account in some way?

I too wonder why it is so difficult, in a forum of those dependent on access to the countryside for our pleasure to level criticism at those, who oppose us. Much of my posts have been based on the 2012 CLA manifesto on Access and my subsequent observations of the resulting attitudes of the opposition.


At the risk of repetition, there are two powerful lobby groups supporting the views of those occupiers of our countryside, who feel they need to control access. One lobbies for property rights and the other for the production of food. The latter needs our support because we are their customers. Andies looks for a way forward, I think that there several ways forward and the ideas that fuel them are interlinked.


Again, if you want to be heard then you need to get the message right. Do you want to bring to attention the possibility of regaining rights of way, or do you want to satisfy yourself by slagging off the landowners? Pick one of the two. You will get very few people to listen to both. If you are clear and concise and focus on the benefits, you are much more likely to gain support.

Too often walkers fail to differentiate between the farmer and the landowner, before we can get to clear and concise focus, there is a need to understand this difference. Perhaps my efforts to draw attention to this difference has been interpreted as slagging off landowners.


I still maintain that interpretation of the 2012 CLA document titled common sense needs more attention by those, who wish to appease the cause of our difficulties and cannot see the link between 1950's Ancient History  ::) , with a current if 8 year old policy.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Bigfoot_Mike on 11:21:35, 12/12/20
I just think there is too much focus on the past and very little about what you actually want to happen. Be clear about this and you may get a lot more support. A campaign for open access in England and Wales or a different way of assessing lost footpaths so that they can be reclassified as ROWs might be worthwhile.  Much of the discussion here seems more like a thesis for a history degree rather than a call to arms to get something changed. There are many ways to get publicity for a cause nowadays, but you need to be very clear what you want. Do you want to draw attention to the misdeeds of yesteryear, when many weren’t even born, or promote greater access to the country and classification of more footpaths? I know which I would be more likely to support and suspect I wouldn’t be alone.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:34:16, 12/12/20
And surely a way forward must be improved routes and areas to walk it. At the risk of offending, how many walkers can really size up surrounding terrain and speak a language that promotes the improvement of ways? We have all been following rights of way for so long that we cannot really evaluate the properties in the countryside, which improve continuity of way and quality of way.

PS, perhaps I should add safety.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: shortwalker on 11:39:09, 12/12/20

At the risk of repetition, there are two powerful lobby groups supporting the views of those occupiers of our countryside, who feel they need to control access. One lobbies for property rights and the other for the production of food. The latter needs our support because we are their customers. Andies looks for a way forward, I think that there several ways forward and the ideas that fuel them are interlinked.


Too often walkers fail to differentiate between the farmer and the landowner, before we can get to clear and concise focus, there is a need to understand this difference. Perhaps my efforts to draw attention to this difference has been interpreted as slagging off landowners.


I still maintain that interpretation of the 2012 CLA document titled common sense needs more attention by those, who wish to appease the cause of our difficulties and cannot see the link between 1950's Ancient History  ::) , with a current if 8 year old policy.


The reason you and me will never agree BWW, is your assertion (my bold and underlined) that the current landowners are occupiers of our countryside.


You talk about seeing the links in history, at what point in history did the "common man" own the country? When in our history have the "common man been able to walk anywhere they wanted too?


If you have read my earlier post you would see that I perhaps more than most on here can trace my history back to a time when my family lost their land to a landowner (squire) so on the face of it I have more reason than most to despise landowners. But I don't, I accept that things move on and constantly carping on about some perceived utopian past, dose not move us forward.   






Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: shortwalker on 11:44:48, 12/12/20
And surely a way forward must be improved routes and areas to walk it. At the risk of offending, how many walkers can really size up surrounding terrain and speak a language that promotes the improvement of ways? We have all been following rights of way for so long that we cannot really evaluate the properties in the countryside, which improve continuity of way and quality of way.

PS, perhaps I should add safety.


The other argument could be that a lot of people who walk in the country really don't care that much about historical footpaths, they are happy to use the footpaths we currently have. They neither have the time or inclination to try and look for some possible ROW our forefathers used.

Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:51:08, 12/12/20

The other argument could be that a lot of people who walk in the country really don't care that much about historical footpaths, they are happy to use the footpaths we currently have. They neither have the time or inclination to try and look for some possible ROW our forefathers used.
That of course is the interpretation the writing in the landowner press hammers out. Having spent some hours comparing old with new maps, it reads more like an old jigsaw with lost pieces, which have been misplaced.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: shortwalker on 12:14:11, 12/12/20
That of course is the interpretation the writing in the landowner press hammers out. Having spent some hours comparing old with new maps, it reads more like an old jigsaw with lost pieces, which have been misplaced.


You just can't help yourself can you. Any time I say something you don't like the stock answer is it what the landowners want us to do/believe.


Has it ever occurred to you that people are capable of independent thought? That people can hold views that are different to yours that doesn't immediately mean they are some kind of landowner lackey.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:03:02, 12/12/20
I've read the maps, walked the routes and talked to the landowners, who say "Not in my lifetime". Search back through my posts, if you like, sadly photo bucket wiped out the maps.


There is a private bridge over the River Dee, near the Welsh border, a mini version of the Menai Bridge, probably unsafe now, in the possession of an estate that looked pretty impoverished, a decade or so ago. There was money sloshing around in EEC funds at the time, ripe for this sort of use. The potential to see that a corridor of pure countryside of high quality of way between the end of the Monsal Trail and Anglesea was lost in just the sort of point-scoring you are accusing me of.

How did I spot it; I noticed how land occupation by Lord Newborough impaired the ways of the off Moel Fferna at the Rug Estate. It was a lovely trespass, Mrs BWW was transfixed by the view from the middle of the bridge, I nearly had to carry her over in order not to be caught. Even spoke to the owners of the Estate, not that they knew the extent of our invasion of their property, we had carried out. The sad thing was the owner now dead, had been awarded a Military Cross for a heroic defence of a bridge in the Korean War.


Think; there could be a lasting memorial on that bridge to a brave landowner if they were to welcome the ideas of sharing the countryside.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: shortwalker on 13:09:09, 12/12/20
I've read the maps, walked the routes and talked to the landowners, who say "Not in my lifetime". Search back through my posts, if you like, sadly photo bucket wiped out the maps.


There is a private bridge over the River Dee, near the Welsh border, a mini version of the Menai Bridge, probably unsafe now, in the possession of an estate that looked pretty impoverished, a decade or so ago. There was money sloshing around in EEC funds at the time, ripe for this sort of use. The potential to see that a corridor of pure countryside of high quality of way between the end of the Monsal Trail and Anglesea was lost in just the sort of point-scoring you are accusing me of.

How did I spot it; I noticed how land occupation by Lord Newborough impaired the ways of the off Moel Fferna at the Rug Estate. It was a lovely trespass, Mrs BWW was transfixed by the view from the middle of the bridge, I nearly had to carry her over in order not to be caught. Even spoke to the owners of the Estate, not that they knew the extent of our invasion of their property, we had carried out. The sad thing was the owner now dead, had been awarded a Military Cross for a heroic defence of a bridge in the Korean War.


Think; there could be a lasting memorial on that bridge to a brave landowner if they were to welcome the ideas of sharing the countryside.


Your point is?


Perhaps you could actually engage in debate. After all that is what this is all about.

Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:53:44, 12/12/20
Perhaps you could actually engage in debate. After all that is what this is all about.
Your point is?
I though that was just what I have been doing :-\ supporting the OP with a bit of like thinking.


The point of my last post; to start o show that there could be more to talk about. My experience on the forum I posted at the time was to be challenged by long term member, who claimed to be knowledgeable of that area, that I had got the wrong bridge and it had a right of way to it. In reality, the route is a no go, but both among like-minded people and officially I was never given the chance to get the idea of such a route as an example of how terrain, infrastructure and destinations could be seen as a learning curve.

Today it may still be a fantasy, but to discuss it in virtual reality might encourage others to look at parts and collect evidence that I no longer have the strength to go out and do.

It was the idea of walking all the Munros unhindered that was the keystone to Scotland getting their Land Reform Act.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Andies on 14:14:14, 12/12/20
Sorry shortwalker but I am struggling to post a better direct link to the John Andrews story I have previously referred to. If you follow the link on the "an interesting read" thread you will see it on the pannageman blog on the craddocks website. It really is worth the effort and as I said I would be very interested to hear your take on it ;)
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: shortwalker on 22:29:24, 12/12/20
Sorry shortwalker but I am struggling to post a better direct link to the John Andrews story I have previously referred to. If you follow the link on the "an interesting read" thread you will see it on the pannageman blog on the craddocks website. It really is worth the effort and as I said I would be very interested to hear your take on it ;)


I did read through it, but it didn't really change my mind over anything. Their were/are some questionable means used to block/move ROW. I had to laugh at that Lubbit Parish council didn't really see the need/want many ROW in it's area. I look at our local Parish Council and can't help but think they would likely come to the same conclusion. (If left to their own devices) 


It certainly demonstrates how difficult it is likely to be to get many of the "lostways" reopened. There is a bit of me that feels why bother, perhaps our energy would be better spent getting our current ROW better maintained and accessible.


I personally would put some effort into something like Slow Ways.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Andies on 11:10:37, 13/12/20

I did read through it, but it didn't really change my mind over anything. Their were/are some questionable means used to block/move ROW. I had to laugh at that Lubbit Parish council didn't really see the need/want many ROW in it's area. I look at our local Parish Council and can't help but think they would likely come to the same conclusion. (If left to their own devices) 
To be honest even I find much on this site somewhat technical for me. I still remain a little surprised that you found nothing on the specific pannageman blog entry about John Andrews (19 April 2019) and the link therein to his story:"From a Wild Frontier to the Promised Land? - discovering Suffolk paths" worthy of comment, especially given your Suffolk connections? I'm not trying to goad you shortwalker by banging on about this but for me it just seemed to say it all, and whilst I am very aware that our thinking differs somewhat I thought it would have deserved some direct comment, as you are one of the few on the forum (their choice obviously, I'm not having a go folks) who seem willing to at least challenge the views of BWW, myself and clearly John Andrews?
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Bigfoot_Mike on 13:03:11, 13/12/20

Too often walkers fail to differentiate between the farmer and the landowner, before we can get to clear and concise focus, there is a need to understand this difference. Perhaps my efforts to draw attention to this difference has been interpreted as slagging off landowners.


Most walkers don’t care about the difference. We are interested in legally gaining access to the countryside. There are many more members of the public than there are of the CLA and NFU. A concise, cogently argued case might enthuse the larger group to push for greater access, similar to what we have in Scotland. Dwelling on the past and the supposed bad guys will change nothing in my opinion.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: shortwalker on 22:57:12, 13/12/20
To be honest even I find much on this site somewhat technical for me. I still remain a little surprised that you found nothing on the specific pannageman blog entry about John Andrews (19 April 2019) and the link therein to his story:"From a Wild Frontier to the Promised Land? - discovering Suffolk paths" worthy of comment, especially given your Suffolk connections? I'm not trying to goad you shortwalker by banging on about this but for me it just seemed to say it all, and whilst I am very aware that our thinking differs somewhat I thought it would have deserved some direct comment, as you are one of the few on the forum (their choice obviously, I'm not having a go folks) who seem willing to at least challenge the views of BWW, myself and clearly John Andrews?


I hadn't even seen the From a wild frontier to promised land.


I have now had a look at it and apart from mentioning some places I know, doesn't really change my thinking. (nor does it really say anything different from the other pieces I read)


For future reference this is the link:  https://pannageman.craddocks.co.uk/2019/04/10/from-a-wild-frontier-to-the-promised-land-51/


Despite what some on here think of me, I am well aware of the underhand/illegal things that are done concerning restricting/closing ROW9(s). I just have a different take on how to resolve it.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Andies on 11:11:31, 14/12/20

I hadn't even seen the From a wild frontier to promised land.


I have now had a look at it and apart from mentioning some places I know, doesn't really change my thinking. (nor does it really say anything different from the other pieces I read)


For future reference this is the link:  https://pannageman.craddocks.co.uk/2019/04/10/from-a-wild-frontier-to-the-promised-land-51/


Despite what some on here think of me, I am well aware of the underhand/illegal things that are done concerning restricting/closing ROW9(s). I just have a different take on how to resolve it.

Glad you have read it, and thanks for putting the link in, for some unknown reason I just couldn't get it to accept the link!

I wouldn't worry about what anyone on here does or doesn't think of you. I put my view across, (probably to the point of getting on peoples nerves), and I think everyone is entitled to do so, otherwise what's the point of the forum? The only thing that does irritate me is when people are rude, there is no need for it. Keep posting and putting your views across I say  O0
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: barewirewalker on 11:57:34, 14/12/20

 Dwelling on the past and the supposed bad guys will change nothing in my opinion.
I am struggling to find an area of study that has not relied on history, ancient or contemporary, for guidance and evidence. Shortwalker urges me to join in the debate, yet when I point to an example that my further debate, I am accused of 'slagging off landowners'.

Rather than campaign, I would together with others dig deeper into the reasoning that might assist those, who campaign. Yet, when I find an example that seems to offer some practical opportunity to further debate, the implied criticism of the occupier of the land gets thrown back.

Quote
Quote
In Humberts Commentaries (published by a firm of chartered surveyors), the Earl of March
and Kinrara, Who, with his father the 9th Duke of Richmond owns the 12,000-acre Goodwood Estate in West Sussex, had a tip for fellow
landowners:
We deliberately created a Country Park under the Countryside Act on 60 acres of poor-quality land on the top of the Downs. It is an open area
where people can park their cars, play games with their children, picnic and exercise their dogs. There is no charge for admission, but it gives
us the opportunity to say: ‘You can’t go there, but you can go to the Country Park'.
Just to get on the nerves of those, who still 'knuckle ye forhead' to lords etc, that clutter political scene with archaic notions.  :D

 A concise, cogently argued case might enthuse the larger group to push for greater access, similar to what we have in Scotland. Dwelling on the past
The political force that created Scotland's 2003 Land Reform Act was very much fueled by ancient history and some forgotten contemporary history was very much in evidence 15 years ago that played a part in modelling the improvements in access that led to the freedom of access enjoyed there.
Slow ways have been mentioned as a way forward, those Slow Ways that cannot be seen on a map are what landowners fear, they try to make little of them, by saying much the same as the Earl of March said in the above quote.

What have we gained from this topic, recognition of the 'Devonian Disease'? It is recognised in Suffolk and lesions caused by that infection can be seen in Shropshire. A Bit like calling a cancer 'Hodkinson's Lymphoma' something that has spread alot further than someone call Hodgkinson, yet history has left a name there that allows people to put a name to a wealth of understanding.
Don't fret Slowalker, I'll get accused of something and it will probably have nothing to do with the hidden meanings I would love for others to pick up.


 'From a wild frontier to promised land' there is a lot more to that title than meets the eye, the more I learn from the countryside I walk the more I realise sharing dreams can open up the promised land.



Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: shortwalker on 13:40:53, 14/12/20
BWW I have never said ignore history, it is how we get to where we are. But as I pointed out in the Mandela example earlier, you can't go forward if you constantly look back.


Your signature is "Their land, our country" you posts are full of "how terrible our landowners are" type rhetoric. You could quite easily post your views without always be negative about the landowners.
 

My starting point is, we are where we are. How we got there may be important but in negotiations you have to look forward. To get these "lostways" etc. We (those who want more open access) will have to work with the current landowners not those of generations past. The problem is there are many different groups who all have their own agenda (some of the groups have already been mentioned.)







Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: barewirewalker on 17:08:09, 14/12/20
We seem to have similar interest;
I personally would put some effort into something like Slow Ways.
But we need to understand the potential that is there, to fully understand that potential, we need to know why they are not functioning as they should.  The best we cannot see, because there are parts missing and dare I say why those parts are missing, no we get into this wrangle that has been going on.

You criticize my signature, I adopted it, when I first started to post on forums, I was walking in area where I was meeting as lot of hostility. I realized that each occupier only saw the entity of their own holding and receive no advice or guidance from their professional bodies to understand that their holdings however large is part of something much larger. Bigfoot_mike rightly points out that we are part of a very much larger voting group than the professional bodies lobbying for the occupiers of those small blocks of countryside that are the scars caused by the Devonian Disease.

To understand the pattern created by this in Suffolk, is difficult, because it is so wholesale. Yet I have just been reading some 1980's articles that say Suffolk is far better off for access than Norfolk, yet;
Quote
Now at last we shall be able to see that the mountains of Snowdonia, the Lakes, and the waters of the Broads, the moors and dales of the Peak, the South Downs and the tors of the West Country belong to the people as a right and not as a concession. This is not just a Bill. lt is a people’s charter — a people’s charter for the open-air, for the hikers and the ramblers, for everyone who loves to get out into the open air and enjoy the countryside. Without it they are fettered, deprived of their powers of access
and facilities needed to make holidays enjoyable. With it the countryside is theirs to preserve, to cherish, to enjoy and to make their own.

Minister of Town and Country Planning Lewis Silkin MP,
during the second-reading debate on the National Parks and
Access to the Countryside Bill in 1949.


But can you see those magnificent expanses of water, they are very different to the geography of The Lakes, and view points will be rare like Combermere in Cheshire and the smaller meres in north Shropshire, to exploit the scenic quality of these types of wetland is so unique to it's individual geography. Like Kettle Mere near Ellesmere, jealously guarded by 'private land', yet explicit of it's name as the nature of the location holds the steam of a boiled long into the day. I doubt the current landowner is even aware of this, whoops sorry to be critical. Poor landowner, kiss his injured vanity and make it better. Of course, if were not to be inciting trespass, I could write a walk guide that school children could follow and see for themselves such natural effects.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: shortwalker on 18:05:37, 14/12/20
We seem to have similar interest;But we need to understand the potential that is there, to fully understand that potential, we need to know why they are not functioning as they should.  The best we cannot see, because there are parts missing and dare I say why those parts are missing, no we get into this wrangle that has been going on.

You criticize my signature, I adopted it, when I first started to post on forums, I was walking in area where I was meeting as lot of hostility. I realized that each occupier only saw the entity of their own holding and receive no advice or guidance from their professional bodies to understand that their holdings however large is part of something much larger. Bigfoot_mike rightly points out that we are part of a very much larger voting group than the professional bodies lobbying for the occupiers of those small blocks of countryside that are the scars caused by the Devonian Disease.

To understand the pattern created by this in Suffolk, is difficult, because it is so wholesale. Yet I have just been reading some 1980's articles that say Suffolk is far better off for access than Norfolk, yet;

But can you see those magnificent expanses of water, they are very different to the geography of The Lakes, and view points will be rare like Combermere in Cheshire and the smaller meres in north Shropshire, to exploit the scenic quality of these types of wetland is so unique to it's individual geography. Like Kettle Mere near Ellesmere, jealously guarded by 'private land', yet explicit of it's name as the nature of the location holds the steam of a boiled long into the day. I doubt the current landowner is even aware of this, whoops sorry to be critical. Poor landowner, kiss his injured vanity and make it better. Of course, if were not to be inciting trespass, I could write a walk guide that school children could follow and see for themselves such natural effects.


You really are just incapable of having any conversation. without having a dig. Just why did you have to put that in  "I doubt the current landowner is even aware of this, whoops sorry to be critical. Poor landowner, kiss his injured vanity and make it better."
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: barewirewalker on 10:58:12, 15/12/20

You really are just incapable of having any conversation. without having a dig. Just why did you have to put that in  "I doubt the current landowner is even aware of this, whoops sorry to be critical. Poor landowner, kiss his injured vanity and make it better."
Your hard man Shortwalker, mea culpa I am not even allowed the merest quip.

Sadly there are few true hearted countrymen around today. The days, when the 1.25 -1.5 proper farm workers per 100 acres have given way to 0.25-0.5/100 acres and these are now contractors. When the local pub was the clearing ground for censure or approbation, it was difficult for any matter in the countryside to go without comment. I, like those artful cynics of yesteryear, can lay a false trail  ::) . Often there was a message, they were past masters at wrapping it up, so that the hidden message came out in a haze of last nights beer, whilst washing the 56th cow's udder, to the clank of teat clusters and choof-chah of the vacuum line, to a new dawning day.

Of course the gastro-pub in the village is now boarded up, the village sages have long gone and his tied cottage is part of of outer-suburbia. Little hidden gems of the countryside, secret paths and places of contemplation that link up a way of rural paradise have been swiped out by a 50ft machine bed or left to lie under a thicket of bramble and briar.

Those old village sages were harsh critics, the squire was rarely the recipient of their well meaning advice because they smelled of diesel oil or animal faeces, yet their observations were accurate, far reaching but often delivered with an oblique sense of rustic irony.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Andies on 14:21:08, 15/12/20
Perhaps if the rights of way provisions in the Deregulation Act of 2015 are enacted life may be more straightforward  :-\

 https://www.oss.org.uk/what-do-we-fight-for/footpaths-rights-of-way/the-deregulation-act/ (https://www.oss.org.uk/what-do-we-fight-for/footpaths-rights-of-way/the-deregulation-act/)
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: Andies on 15:08:46, 15/12/20
Spotted some more good news. A great result as I've used a number of these and some of the proposed closures were just crazy, and I suspect motivated by saving money rather than safety  :-\


https://www.ramblers.org.uk/news/latest-news/2020/december/momentum-grows-as-another-eleven-crossings-are-saved.aspx (https://www.ramblers.org.uk/news/latest-news/2020/december/momentum-grows-as-another-eleven-crossings-are-saved.aspx)
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: shortwalker on 15:42:29, 15/12/20
My grandpa would have been regarded as one of those sages. He was a cowman on the broads marshes, there was very little he didn't know about them. I suppose now he could of called himself a consultant and made a killing. Instead even when he retired people would knock on his door asking about where to see some wildlife etc.


Farming as it was even in the 50's, has largely changed out of all recognition. before I finished working I was involved in the design process of making milking carousels, that meant a cow got on a continuously moving carousel had it's teats cleaned and milked automatically. Some would take 20+ cows at a time.  But to be efficient farming has had to move in this direction.  (the UK population has increased by aprox. 16 million since 1951)


My next door neighbour and his son in law(SIL) have about 150 sheep, but they own no land. SIL wants to be a full time farmer but can't afford to own or even rent a farm. So they rent some fields. The last couple of years both the people rented land off had no interest in farming. One brought the farm to live in and rent the cottages out as holiday lets. Having sheep in the field helps him create the rural idyllic. The other a pure "hardnosed" business man built a "barn" (the only way to get planning permission) that apart from SIL doing his lambing in it for a couple of years will be used for nothing more than storage for some of his other ventures. Having the sheep in his fields allowed him to build a few "shepherds huts" (although we never got to use them) it also meant the sheep helped fertilise the fields that he has now planted trees in (partly funded by the Environment Agency, as they are on a flood plain) that will then go to be burnt in a biomass power station.     


Whilst these two "landowners" may not be the norm they are certainly a rising percentage of our rural communities. Their only affiliation to the NFU is through their insurance policies, and neither certainly have any time for CLA.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:02:38, 17/12/20
Farming as it was even in the 50's, has largely changed out of all recognition. before I finished working I was involved in the design process of making milking carousels, that meant a cow got on a continuously moving carousel had it's teats cleaned and milked automatically. Some would take 20+ cows at a time.  But to be efficient farming has had to move in this direction.  (the UK population has increased by aprox. 16 million since 1951)

You have just stirred a memory of one of the reasons I left farming, the 17 years that were my working life in farming, I had milked with pipline/cowshed, parlour 2x8 and split level herringbone 4x8 graduating to to the later just ahead of the widespread need to make such changes out of economic necessity. The carousel system was in it's infancy yet the huge capital outlay of such an outlay was made steeper by the fact that the buildings, superb relics of the of the agricultural revolution, were totally unsuitable for the next move into and integrated milking herd with a forward thinking mixed farm system. The landowner, then a very good person, left all his management decisions to a firm of land agents, they had forced up the rents with all the advanced investments my family had put into the farm, tied in with another adjacent holding on another estate.

Out of the blue came an offer to relinquish the tenancy, with a change in the law related to succession of tenancy. My father would have chucked it the bin, but I was already having doubts about the character of the son, I would be spending the rest of my working life, being the tenant of. We made them compensate us for both holdings and nothing that happened since has persuaded me that we made other than the correct decision. Unfortunately access issues that might have benefited by the sort of advice that could have come occupiers without the sense of property held by hereditary owners, might have been made that could have not only local benefits but national significance.

I was a third generation active member of the NFU, I had made my county executive adopt a pro-access stance that got passed at national level in my early 20's as my rock climbing experience gave me some insight how times were changing. However the need to create a new career for myself intervened.


You may read the CLA's policy on access differently, when I read it and pieced together attitudes I found in the new generation of countryside occupiers it made the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. That was a few years ago but it is still the active official policy of the main lobby group trying to form our access network to their ideal. The file size of an image version turned PDF is just under 1mb and should transmit as an attachment now, though it was a bit large when I first got it off the CLA's website, when I had a password. This policy was never made available to the LAF I served on for 5 years, despite it having representation by members of the CLA, who may have been closely connected with its creation.
PM me and I will attach it to a return email. I am not into file sharing software at the moment.

Whilst these two "landowners" may not be the norm they are certainly a rising percentage of our rural communities. Their only affiliation to the NFU is through their insurance policies, and neither certainly have any time for CLA.

Not sure of the time scale you are placing these experiences in but the CLA has carried out a huge membership campaign since the mid 1990's and the debacle of the Countryside Alliance has not improved opinions.
Title: Re: Suffolk Quiz
Post by: shortwalker on 15:56:41, 17/12/20


Not sure of the time scale you are placing these experiences in but the CLA has carried out a huge membership campaign since the mid 1990's and the debacle of the Countryside Alliance has not improved opinions.


These experiences are from last year and although I have had no contact with one of the landowners the one who has the holiday lets hasn't changed.