Author Topic: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?  (Read 33097 times)

barewirewalker

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4226
Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
« Reply #45 on: 10:03:27, 23/06/16 »
I always read your posts with great interest but then have to conclude that they're almost completely incoherent.  :(


Percy I am delighted you read my post with interest, I shall do my utmost to keep you interested. However I must agree with you regarding above quote. Sadly it seemed to make sense when I wrote, I can barely comprehend it now. You have my sympathies, I think it must be Harry Cotterell's influence, incoherent but not speechless.


I think I also tried to mix up to many lines of thought, there is a relevant story, I think, I will post it elsewhere after I have voted.
BWW
Their Land is in Our Country.

barewirewalker

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4226
Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
« Reply #46 on: 11:14:00, 23/06/16 »
Some very interesting anomalies there.


On the current map, most of these footpaths exist (or are at least marked), but not as PRoW's, with quite a substantial network in the woodland behind the house.  Are these permissive paths, or are they unavailable to the public?


There are a number that have been lost, specifically one to the West which would have passed straight through what is currently a large orchard, which would have helped connect several through routes.


Looking further afield on the current map, to the East, there is a missing bridleway between Bishopstone and Caroline Coppice (note the small spur from the main Bridleway you can see skirting the North of the large woodland in the picture below).  This estate seems to be riddled with paths that are not classed as PRoW


ETA - a permissive path would be orange.  The black dotted lines just note the existence of a path and not its designation.


It is these anomalies which interest me, I am still trying to fully understand the pattern. It is Harry Coterell's confidence in his knowledge of what we walkers want that puzzles me, check out his article previous page. Bear in mind he then went on to hold the Presidency of the CLA and they published their policy on access during his tenure of office.


He fails to mention access to features, which should be in the public domain, he is sitting right on top of one. Even if it does not fit in with a walk on the Welsh border named after Offa's Dyke, surely in cannot have escaped his notice.
BWW
Their Land is in Our Country.

Percy

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1653
Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
« Reply #47 on: 12:05:44, 23/06/16 »

Percy I am delighted you read my post with interest, I shall do my utmost to keep you interested. However I must agree with you regarding above quote. Sadly it seemed to make sense when I wrote, I can barely comprehend it now. You have my sympathies, I think it must be Harry Cotterell's influence, incoherent but not speechless.


I think I also tried to mix up to many lines of thought, there is a relevant story, I think, I will post it elsewhere after I have voted.
I hope my post didn't come across the wrong way. You seem to have great knowledge about this subject area but I do sometimes feel that I am not completely grasping what you are saying.

barewirewalker

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4226
Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
« Reply #48 on: 18:45:32, 23/06/16 »
 I hope my post didn't come across the wrong way. You seem to have great knowledge about this subject area but I do sometimes feel that I am not completely grasping what you are saying.  
 
Not at all. What may appear as great knowledge is my struggling to grasp at the facts and explain my understanding of them as I try to dig them out from old maps.


Sometimes I probably make a bit of a hash of trying to explain it. It would seem that no one else has, Natural England failed to recognise the original Corruption of the DM, and yet it would seem this is generally recognised by those who administer our footpaths.
BWW
Their Land is in Our Country.

barewirewalker

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4226
Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
« Reply #49 on: 17:41:01, 24/06/16 »
Some very interesting anomalies there.


On the current map, most of these footpaths exist (or are at least marked), but not as PRoW's, with quite a substantial network in the woodland behind the house.  Are these permissive paths, or are they unavailable to the public?


There are a number that have been lost, specifically one to the West which would have passed straight through what is currently a large orchard, which would have helped connect several through routes.


Looking further afield on the current map, to the East, there is a missing bridleway between Bishopstone and Caroline Coppice (note the small spur from the main Bridleway you can see skirting the North of the large woodland in the picture below).  This estate seems to be riddled with paths that are not classed as PRoW


ETA - a permissive path would be orange.  The black dotted lines just note the existence of a path and not its designation.




The Caroline Coppice example is an interesting indicator of a much longer way, it shows, as you point out, a continuity of way through to Bishopstone. Was the purpose of the spur just to link the Bridleway? Which has been allowed as a PRoW to Bishopstone Court, but the 'grey paths' suggest a longer route.

I show today's OS with a faint overlay from the 1886 survey, and we can see that more went on in Caroline Coppice than the map shows. The spur links to Almshouses Houses and a cottage, but a byepass is shown as well.


I have overlaid the resized 1886 map on the this map and reduced the opacity to show it as a show from the past.


Should we take a more forensic approach to old maps?
BWW
Their Land is in Our Country.

barewirewalker

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4226
Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
« Reply #50 on: 09:21:52, 27/06/16 »
Another bit of online reading;
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1000881
Quote
After visiting Garnons earlier in the year, Repton produced a Red Book in July 1791. The grounds had already seen some improvement, and Repton mentions recently made walks west of the house. For the park he proposed to create the appearance of uninterrupted unity of domain. That was to be achieved by moving the turnpike road which passed c 150m in front of the house to a new line outside the park c 400m to the south. A new entrance was to be contrived and plantation screens and clumps introduced both to hide unwanted views and to enhance others.

Those walks west of the house seem to fit into the pattern of other paths beyond the boundaries of the park and would point towards a need created by the moving of the road.

 
The current view from Google Earth shows the back drive is no more and the Lodge house as a separate property from the parkland, it would have been possible to put a footpath in along field boundaries, with out any hindrance to the farming of the land, but despite HC mentioning landowners 'giving more than they take', this might be a 'give' a bit to close to home.

 
I have to admit to knowing about the Corruption of the Definitive map around Garnons long before I started this topic. In fact that Harry Cotterell became President of the CLA around the time I was first asked to join a Local Access Forum and I had access to the CLA's monthly magazine, I checked out Garnons and found an area around the estate stripped of RoWs, I thought that is just 'par for the course'. Coming back to this X zone has been quite a learning curve, shame it has not given HC some insight into lostways.

 
An area of 1940 acres without public access, equivalent to nearly 8 km grid squares. Yet another example of a phenomenon of which there are many examples across the country. I could not get particularly interested as I was concentrating on my home counties problems and the old maps would be 50/ 60 miles away in the Hereford County Archives. Why bother, the Wye Way manages to squeeze itself under the southern boundary of HC's privacy zone. Actually I may be slightly inaccurate there; Sir John Cotterell may be the actual landowner, though reading Marion Shoard's book 'This Land is our Land', which examines the pattern of ownership of rural land in the UK, I would guess that actual ownership is more disguised and protected against inheritance tax. HC would seem to have an elder brother, who stands to inherit the Baronetcy, this may be why HC likes to describe himself as more of a Farmer than a landowner. This was written in the blurb about him when he became President of the CLA, but even being the younger sibling does not mean that he is not aware of the history of the estate circa 1949 onward during the compilation of the DM.
Coming from a farming background, those who own land tend to treat me as if I fall in with their way of thinking, so the knowledge that the DM was corrupted in my area is still referred to with some relish, by those who think it clever to have 'got one over' on the intentions of the 1949 Act. For the scale of this difference between old maps and those RoWs, which should have been shown as they are elsewhere, to have been left off must be woven into local folk lore, you would just need to be in a particular strata of society to hear about it.

 
However thanks to Fernman's help earlier in this topic I now can access old maps sitting at my PC. Click on this link;
http://maps.nls.uk/view/101569740
and the National Library of Scotland will provide instant access to the 1903 OS map. The residual grey paths recorded on the Explorer map don't fully make sense until they are compared with the pattern of access shown by the actual maps closer in time to the original surveys. In my last post I refer to the path being a byepass, add to this the tributary paths which join way, this adds up to "Strength of Way" that rather alters the description of 'shortcuts of yesteryear'.

Bringing back this image from the last page, does the the red deviation off the front drive to Garnons and the spur Ron has noticed indicate a much stronger pedestrian traffic Byepassing Garnons than merely local shortcuts.
Where is this traffic going to and coming from?

Does this give us a hint? This section of map is taken from the 1886 map, which does not show a bridge at Bridge Sollers. The link to the later map 1905 above does show the bridge. Now a bridge crossing of a major river outside of an urban area must be an important feature in the access map for the 21st century, a redundant ferry not important but could access to historical ford crossing be of value to the equestrian tourism industry. Also valuable entry/exit points for canoeists.


 
 

« Last Edit: 09:57:46, 27/06/16 by barewirewalker »
BWW
Their Land is in Our Country.

barewirewalker

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4226
Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
« Reply #51 on: 10:54:14, 29/06/16 »
I wonder if anyone has followed my link to the Library of Scotland's 1905 map of Sheet XXXII.NE and had a look at it, to compare it with this map I posted on the previous page;

I have spent a few hours highlighting the old footpaths etc. to get a better picture of the difference between the access allowed today and the access shown in the days when the OS were able to survey the footpath network as it was being used. In those areas where there is a high incidence of 'off highway access' these ways tend to bear a very similar pattern to the ways shown from these surveys.


I have overlayed some of these ways onto the OS 1:25k map, as they have manage to escape the notice of the local CPC's and others charged with the civil duty of compiling the Definitive Map I have use the colours nature uses to draw attention.





Bear in mind this is the Local area Harry Cotterell has drawn on his personal experience to publish the Landowners' National Policy on our Access Network.



BWW
Their Land is in Our Country.

barewirewalker

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4226
Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
« Reply #52 on: 10:50:16, 30/06/16 »

Harry Cotterell wrote;
Quote
People want circular routes, easily followed and preferably somewhere they can park their car.

Is it as simple as that? Perhaps he should have written, "fair access to their Countryside".

Because I do not think that HC's experience and knowledge is limited to the area of 1940 acres immediately surrounding Garnons, which is devoid of PRoW's.

If one is to search for a PRoW north east of the Bridleway,which forms the top-right edge of the X zone another even more enormous X Zone appears.



This is an area of 8800 acres and 1940 acres equals 44 km grid squares which share just that length of bridleway.
« Last Edit: 11:38:29, 30/06/16 by barewirewalker »
BWW
Their Land is in Our Country.

barewirewalker

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4226
Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
« Reply #53 on: 09:04:27, 01/07/16 »
Despite this large area of potential lost ways to learn from and come to conclusions leading to a positive and constructive approach HR led the landowners along a route, which is destined to trim and minimise our access network if the CLA's lobbying is effective;



"Small Errors on the Definitive Map" ? ? ?

Of course to download The Right Way Forward from cla.org.uk you need an identity and password to get into their private website. An active member of the CLA sat on the Local Access Forum with me and over the three years until my ejection, never was this document referred to or offered for comment to that forum.
In fact to get sight of it I had to use someone else's password to access their site to get a copy. The fact that the 1949 act, which created RoWs, resulted from the political frustration created by landowners refusing to allow access in the pre-war era is not mentioned, their policy pamphlet is a pathetic whinge about the difficulties created by the need for RoW's and a call to chop out those footpaths, which appear to have no use.
There is on Harry Coterell's own doorstep an abundance of examples of incomplete ways, waiting for the recognition of the Corruption of the Definitive Map, so they can be unlocked.





« Last Edit: 09:18:04, 01/07/16 by barewirewalker »
BWW
Their Land is in Our Country.

histman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 40
Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
« Reply #54 on: 12:38:25, 01/07/16 »
Mr Cotterell is now Chairman of Fisher German one of the main land agents in the East Midlands. Not a great company to deal with when raising problems with PRsOW on the land they manage. Though compared with the Church Commissioners they are angels!

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/fisher-german-announces-new-chairman/story-27881486-detail/story.html [nofollow]



barewirewalker

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4226
Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
« Reply #55 on: 09:10:38, 03/07/16 »
Complete with newly awarded OBE.   :-\


Hi Barry great to know you are still following my posts. You may not know that your cross country adventure, which I read with interest, should have been made more direct by a route from Newport to Shrewsbury.
Of course the footpaths for this route are not PRoW's, but there is a footbridge over the River Roden on the line of the route (an expensive piece of infrastructure) sadly underused. The de-militarization of the High Ercal aerodrome contributed to this and one or two more interesting points, which Harry Cotterell should have been taking into consideration if he had properly earned his OBE.


Curious that ignorance is no excuse in law but it is lack of knowledge based on an arrogant disregard of research, which brings high recognition to those with power.
BWW
Their Land is in Our Country.

barewirewalker

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4226
Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
« Reply #56 on: 18:47:47, 07/07/16 »
This is the page from the CLA's policy document relative to lost ways;



Does it ring true? If the ways were really as Harry Cotterell describes then perhaps, but the comparison of the mapping of old footpaths with today's access does not tell this story. A wholesale stripping out of ways that link into Public Rights of Way, which should have a valuable contribution to a continuance of way to valuable destinations, is the message I get from looking at the maps in HC's home patch.


Is the reason these paths are not been used because they are not PRoW's? Yes, it is probably beyond living memory for most since the 1949 Act, however the continuity of way across this exclusion zone lead to a non-urban river crossing. The only bridge in a 10 mile stretch of the River Wye. 10 miles from Sollers Bridge, WSW, a walker would be approaching the Black Mountains.

If landowners would own up to the Corruption of the Definitive map, allow the restoration of those missing parts of the access network, the 1949 Act tried to create, perhaps this would be a common sense approach.



« Last Edit: 10:56:09, 08/07/16 by barewirewalker »
BWW
Their Land is in Our Country.

barewirewalker

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4226
Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
« Reply #57 on: 11:43:29, 08/07/16 »
Bridge Sollers looking North,

almost a wasted asset as the approach from the north is practically blocked out by the exclusion zone. I personally would not want to approach this bridge in the face of traffic on the bend. A cross country approach from out of the right skyline may well have developed if the old ways had been properly recorded.


Crossing the River Wye here would be a pleasant part of a route, local circular or long distance linear, on the south bank going east there is a PRoW, which is mapped by the OS consistently with other footpaths omitted. Whereas the CLA believes there is a strong case to immediately end claims for unused unrecorded ways, it is examples such as this logic would require that time is given for claims to be made.


Reading the above page, the CLA's Common Sense approach strikes me as a petulant whinge, rather than a balanced document with a sound basis for deciding the future of 'Access to our countryside'.


The one notable omission from HC's articles and the CLA's common sense approach is the growing contribution leisure activity makes towards the rural economy. In Scotland the BMC quote figures for walking alone out earning all field sports by ten times. A common sense approach would concentrate on strengthening valuable assets such as the river crossing at Bridge Sollers.


I think that the driving force behind the CLA is guilt, more afraid of losing image through the self interest of their forbears being brought to public attention they wish to hurry past 2026, covering up, rather than owning up.
« Last Edit: 11:46:42, 08/07/16 by barewirewalker »
BWW
Their Land is in Our Country.

barewirewalker

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4226
Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
« Reply #58 on: 09:11:23, 10/07/16 »
Back on page 2 of this topic I outlined a 7250 acre, area bare of PRoWs, extending east from Broadfield Court, Herefordshire. This also must have come to the attention of Harry Cotterell as the landowner, who appears to have a sizable stake in this area is a past chairman of the CLA.
If we put this area into a map together with those of the Garnons - Mansell Lacy group an interesting and curious pattern emerges, which seems to refute, quite definitely, some of the assertion made by HC or his staff in the CLA's wise document on lostways.



The purple dashes is a possible route following PRoWs, leads over Dinmore Hill towards Mansell Lacy. It starts at a bridge over the River Lugg, this bridges is approachable by footpaths from the north and the south by footpaths, it is a safer crossing than its nearest alternative and on the west side of the bridge a spur extends from Dinmore hill directly towards the bridge.
This is the sort of natural feature that will enhance the value of a route, but sadly it is totally cut off from any approach from the east and the north by the Broadfield Court Exclusion zone.

but this sort of river crossing that is less of a traffic hazard should be considered an asset to the development of the access network, especially when it's improvement can be made by ways left off the DM to the apparent advantage of those landowners in the 1950-60's, who used their positions in public office, to obstruct the purpose of the 1949 Act.
The approach to the bridge can be seen from this Google Earth shot;

Because the CLA is an organisation concerned with the protection of property rights, their policy does not truly reflect the interests of the farmer, the producer. Any business which creates a product has to be aware of the value of public relations (PR) and how this promotes their product. The farmer has a very valuable (and cheap) PR tool in the access network, a fact HC has missed and his 'common sense' policy will perpetuate a situation which may well undermine the goodwill between the local producers of our food and their consumers. All this in a blind pursuit to hang onto privileges from a dark age.
HC wrote in an early article, "landowners may have to give more than the gain". This disappeared, maybe he was given a smack by Sarah Slade. This little venture into this part of Herefordshire has shown me a perfect example of the sort of constructive Permissive Way an enlightened body representing landowners would make, however the true value of this improvement is blocked by Broadfield Court.


To be continued.....
« Last Edit: 09:16:25, 10/07/16 by barewirewalker »
BWW
Their Land is in Our Country.

barewirewalker

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4226
Re: Xzones or Black Holes on our maps?
« Reply #59 on: 13:38:41, 12/07/16 »

Quote from: Harry Cotterell wrote in his article 'A Modern Network for Modern Needs';
For a proposal like this to work. a few fundamental principles
would have to be applied. First, within a parish (or a group of
parishes), rights of way provision would have to improve, both in
terms of quality and quantity. Landowners would have to give
more than they were taking away, thereby providing a net gain in
access. Second, there would have to be agreement with the
parish council and, perhaps, with the local authority, that the
modernisation within a parish was an improvement on existing
provision. Third, important linear routes would have to be preserved
- perhaps the local authority should list them.



Is there hidden in those words an understanding that landowners corrupted the Definitive Map or even a knowledge of the past history of the intransigence of landowners to allow access? Take the words
"Landowners would have to give more than they were taking away, thereby providing a net gain in access".
When I first started reading the CLA's publications on access the predecessor to Sarah Slade, CLA's advisor on access, wrote almost exactly those words. By the time Harry Cotterell took over the presidency Sarah Slade had been appointed to this post. According to Google she is a Lawyer and Landowner, her whole ethos on-line seems to be hard line anti-access, a stance which was confirmed to me by someone who had served on the same committees with her. The attitude expressed in HC's earlier words have disappeared from both his later writing and the CLA's policy document.
It is perhaps worth while looking at the map and speculating the sort of changes a more enlightened attitude from landowners might make in the context of;
Quote from: Again Harry Cotterell wrote in his article 'A Modern Network for Modern Needs';
The problem is that thousands of miles of public rights of way
were never designed for recreational walking. They evolved
when walking was the most common mode of transport in the
countryside and it is no surprise that nowadays, people do not
want to walk the short cuts of yesteryear. People want circular
routes, easily followed and preferably somewhere they can park
their car.

The post code for Hampton Court in Herefordshire is HR6 0PN, put this into Street Map and this map comes up, which is the next bridge upstream on the River Lugg from my previous example. This is a very much busier road and a PRoW footpath can be seen exiting onto the road from the north east. From the tone of the CLA's policy document this footpath could well be a contender for the axe, it's use must be very little because of the length of hostile 'A' road would make it an unpopular way to approach this river crossing.(possibly confirmed as there does not seem to be a style and fingerpost)
The more I look at maps and our leisure access the more I come to realise the importance of river crossings. Safety is also an important consideration, both for drivers to be spared the distraction of pedestrians suddenly appearing on sections of busy highway as much as having a safe footpath network.

 The mauve dotted line shows a way via a field margin to a bridge, which would overcome the change in the nature of of the A417, since the footpath was originally used.
Google earth gives an idea of the nature of the road looking east from the Hampton Court bridge;




and Google Earth shows the safer bridge option;



The question is do you scrub out a mile or so of PRoW or do you make it suit a new purpose? Especially when land use has changed in its favour, here ornamental garden  of a century or so ago is now pasture. The possible permissive way shown in mauve, at a stroke, creates a circular route that incorporates Dinmore Hill and a visit to the Lugg, from parking in the Queenswood Country Park, using field margins.
If the grey path along the banks of the Lugg, which presumable served as a way to school, were restored then these 2 grid squares would get a linear access total nearer to the national average in 2 grid squares would be gained.


Somehow HC's conversion from an earlier view on access has taken the CLA further from an understanding which will help to build an access network suitable for the 21st century.





BWW
Their Land is in Our Country.

 

Terms of Use     Privacy Policy