OSS Home page

Recent local news
News from other years - see News Index Page
 

  LOCAL NEWS 2005

Local news 2005
We protest at alleygating in Doncaster - 28 December 2005
We fight downland destruction - 14 December 2005
Unlawful fencing on Netmead Common - 14 December 2005
We join battle against Den Brook turbines - 2 December 2005
Fight for Monmouth's special tree - 29 November 2005
Racecourse extension on common - 28 November 2005
Secretary of State rejects development on Suffolk Common - 9 November 2005
Bridport path saved - 8 November 2005
The fight against wind turbines on Pool Hill, Kirklees - 8 November 2005
West Sussex path won - 8 November 2005
We back parish council to save village green - 26 October 2005
We object to controversial Weymouth Relief Road scheme - 26 October 2005
Private housing for historic Crystal Palace Park - 26 October 2005
Cliff-top beauty spot saved - 11 October 2005
Dismay at land swap for new county hall - 11 October 2005
Plymouth City Council forced to open blocked path in court case - 11 October 2005
We help save Borstal village recreation fields - 7 October 2005
We back Bridport path-change opponents - 7 October 2005
Halton Borough Council writes the longest paragraph - 20 September 2005
OSS rejoices at 'No' to wind turbines - 8 September 2005
Don't develop The Den - 8 September 2005
Historic Cotswold path saved - 25 August 2005
We deplore Dorset's failure to act - 25 August 2005
Fencing plan rejected on Hertfordshire common - 25 August 2005
We deplore dog ban in West Dart valley - 29 July 2005
Last plea to Dorset County Councillors - 18 July 2005
Fairwood Common to be 'suburbanised' - 18 July 2005
We save Exmoor footpath - 14 July 2005
Blot on Sussex beauty-spot path - 14 July 2005
Path changes on charity land - 22 June 2005
We fight development on Suffolk common - 8 June 2005
Fencing plan rejected on Painswick Hill Common - 2 June 2005
We fight Lambeth path closure - 2 June 2005
Pay-to-walk company fights right to roam - 2 June 2005
Fight to save paths from 'petulant' Pearson - 29 April 2005
We slate plan to desecrate Merthyr Common - 27 April 2005
Five blocked paths reopened - 27 April 2005
Regeneration scheme threatens common - 27 April 2005
Bedfordshire paths are 'Cinderellas of the highway network' - 12 April 2005
Dorset County Council should remove unlawful fences - 12 April 2005
Regrettable decision to fence West Sussex common - 5 April 2005
Caldecotte lakeside saved as open space - 5 April 2005
Norfolk County Council fails to defend footpath-  31 March 2005
Kids' kick-about on Wotter Common - 31 March 2005
Wind turbines - 90 feet higher than Nelson's Column - 31 March 2005
Rescue plan for Dartmouth path - 30 March 2005
'Unorthodox' council - 3 March 2005
Corporate grab of public square - 17 February 2005
'Scandalous' motorbike plans in beauty-spot - 17 February 2005
We slate Devon's path plan - 10 February 2005
Dismay at Quantock-fencing decision - 2 February 2005
Friends of Burleigh Green ask for your support - 27 January 2005
Victory on Pembrokeshire Common - 17 January 2005
We save Southwark short-cut  - 13 January 2005



We protest at alleygating in Doncaster
28 December 2005

We have objected to the erection of gates across alleyways in the Nether Hall area of Doncaster.

Our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook has written to Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council to ask under what legislation the council is authorised to erect barriers across public highways.

Says Kate: ‘We know of no law which allows a council to obstruct a public highway in this way. The gating provisions in the Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act, which will allow gates in certain circumstances, have not yet taken effect. Doncaster council appears to have taken the law into its own hands. As a result, members of the public who wish to use these routes as short cuts are barred from doing so. We have asked the council to explain its behaviour and, if it has erected the gates without legal authority, to remove them without delay,’ Kate declares.

top of page



We fight downland destruction
14 December 2005

We have objected strongly to a planning application to destroy important downland at Coombe Farm, near Saltdean to the east of Brighton. The plan is to convert a piece of chalk grassland into a vegetable plot.

Says our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook: ‘We are appalled that part of this last piece of unspoiled downland at Coombe Farm is already being degraded and eroded. The vegetable plot has been made and retrospective planning consent is being sought. Furthermore, other fences are being erected on adjoining downland, no doubt with the intention of converting the land into something else.

‘We have objected to the current planning application and called on Brighton and Hove City Council to put an Article 4 direction on the land at Coombe Farm. That means that the council can require planning applications to be made for any development here. Article 4 directions are commonly used in conservation areas and places where the character of an area of acknowledged importance would be threatened,’ Kate explains.

‘The downland at Coombe Farm is of special importance. It is in the Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and within the boundary of the proposed South Downs National Park. It is a Site of Nature Conservation Interest. It has been mapped as public-access land, so people have the right to walk all over it.  Ironically, chalk downland is now rare in this area. It is fragmented and in small patches. This site, which is close to the urban area of Saltdean, is especially important to local people wishing to gain convenient access to and from the downs. It would be a tragedy if it were destroyed,’ Kate declares.

‘We are urging the Brighton and Hove councillors to reject the planning application for the vegetable plot, and to place an Article 4 direction on Coombe Farm so that any further activities here can be carefully examined. We believe that all the downland should be protected and restored, for public access and for wildlife,’ Kate concludes.

top of page



Unlawful fencing on Netmead Common
13 December 2005

Fencing on Netmead Common. Photo:  Rodney Legg

We have written to Dorset County Council calling on it to remove unlawful fencing on Netmead Common⁽¹⁾, west of Child Okeford, near Sturminster Newton.

Says our chairman, Rodney Legg: ‘This is the only riverside common in the Blackmore Vale. It has extensive views and is important for its wildlife and as a lovely place to walk.

‘The public now has a legal right to walk on every part of this common under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Unfortunately people are prevented from doing so by a fence, of three strands of rusty barbed-wire, which bisects the common. There are no gates or stiles to encourage access. That means that anybody wanting to cross from one side of the common to the other without breaking through the fence must make a round trip of two miles via Child Okeford village. Obviously that is ridiculous and no one can be expected to do that,’ Rodney Legg declares.

‘We have therefore written to Dorset County Council, the access authority, which has powers to ensure that people can gain access to access land. It also has powers under the Law of Property Act 1925 to take enforcement action against unlawful fencing on common land⁽²⁾. We are therefore asking it to act on both counts and to free this common from the fencing which blights it.

‘We are pressing for local authorities to be given a legal duty to take action against unlawful works in the Commons Bill, which is currently passing through the House of Lords. The Bill gives the public a power of enforcement, and we welcome this. Once the Bill becomes law we may be able to take action to free Netmead Common,’ Rodney concludes.


^(1). Netmead Common is a half-mile length of cow pasture on the east bank of the River Stour. It is the only such riverside common in the Blackmore Vale. Despite its low lying position there are extensive views, to the Dorset Downs at Shillingstone Hill and Iron Age ramparts of Hambledon Hill above Child Okeford.

^(2). It is unlawful to erect a building, fence or other work on a common without the consent of the Secretary of State for Environment under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Local authorites have a power to take action against such unlawful works.

top of page



We join battle against Den Brook turbines
2 December 2005

We have joined the band of objectors to the application from Renewable Energy Systems UK Ltd for nine wind-turbines at Den Brook, near North Tawton in mid Devon⁽¹⁾.

Says our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook: ‘The wind turbines, which at 120 metres are the tallest yet proposed in Devon and nearly three times the height of Exeter Cathedral, will be a severe eyesore in this tranquil, unspoilt countryside.  They will be visible from the northern slopes of the Dartmoor National Park and will spoil people’s enjoyment of that area. Their huge height, and their blades which will glint in the sun, will be a blot on this lovely rolling landscape.  Furthermore, if West Devon Borough Council were to allow this development, it could be shooting itself in the foot. The turbines will inevitably deter tourists from visiting the area and this would be a blow to the local economy.

‘We have called on West Devon Borough Council to object to this damaging application,’ Kate concludes.


⁽¹⁾. The application from Renewable Energy Systems UK Ltd for nine wind-turbines at Den Brook in the parish of North Tawton has been submitted to West Devon Borough Council for determination.

(Follow this link to go to Den Brook Valley (Wind Turbine) Action Group's website.)

top of page



Fight for Monmouth's special tree
29 November 2005

We have joined the campaign to save the Catalpa tree at St James’s Square in Monmouth from being wantonly destroyed. We have written to the chief executive of Monmouthshire County Council, Mr Colin Berg, to urge the council to resolve that the tree should be saved⁽¹⁾.

Says Kate Ashbrook, our general secretary: ‘This magnificent, ancient tree is a landmark in the town of Monmouth. It is an important feature of the urban landscape and contributes to making Monmouth a special place. It is outrageous that the tree should be destroyed on spurious grounds of danger. There is clear advice from a leading arboriculturist, Mr Roy Finch of Malvern, that the tree can be managed to make it safe. His view is that it is “an outstanding part of our tree heritage”.

‘It is worth spending money and effort to save this beautiful feature of the town,’ argues Kate. ‘Why has the council not carried out its own risk assessment or obtained a report of what is needed to make it safe? The council should be proud of this beautiful and unusual asset to the town, rather than seemingly determined to destroy it.

‘The tree is scheduled for destruction in December unless the councillors decide otherwise. We urge them to do so,’ Kate concludes.


⁽¹⁾. The tree is by the Cenotaph in St James’s Square, Monmouth. The county council’s Area Manager, Mrs Jenny Lewis, announced earlier this year that the council was to fell the tree, and she intends to do this in December because it is alleged to be dangerous.

top of page



Racecourse extension on common
28 November 2005

We have objected to an application from the Beverley Race Company Ltd to extend the racecourse over Hurn Common, (the Westwood), and keep out the public. The application is made to the Secretary of State for Environment, who must give her consent to any works on common land under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

Says our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook: ‘The race company want to increase the size of Course Enclosure by half a hectare, by moving out the existing fence to take in an area of rough grazing. This may seem a small area, but it is all part of the creeping encroachment on this common. The public has a legal right to walk over this area, but the company wants instead to make people pay to enter when racing is taking place,’ Kate continues.

‘We strongly object to the public’s rights being lost in this way, and consider that the application is detrimental to the interests of local people who wish to enjoy the area for quiet recreation.

‘Furthermore, the race company claims that the landlords, Beverley Pasture Masters, have agreed to the proposal. But the pasture masters have no right to do so. The Beverley Common Pastures Act 1836 states that nothing in the Act shall authorise the pasture masters to exclude or debar the public from enjoying the area for exercise and recreation. So any such consent from the Pasture Masters is contrary to the Act and is therefore meaningless.

‘We trust that the Secretary of State will refuse consent for this development,’ says Kate.

top of page



Secretary of State rejects development on Suffolk common
8 November 2005

Abused - Thurston Chalk Pit Common in Suffolk Photo: John Andrews

We are celebrating the Secretary of State for Environment’s decision to reject plans to develop Chalk Pit Common, at Thurston, near Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk. We had objected to Mr Nigel Franklin’s application to the Secretary of State, under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925 to build a dwelling and garage on the common.

Says Kate Ashbrook, our general secretary: ‘We are delighted that the Secretary of State agreed with us that “the proposals would not contribute to the benefit of the neighbourhood, in the context of the enjoyment of the common as an open space”.

Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 the public has the right to walk over this land. The Secretary of State rightly says that the proposed development would render the common inaccessible, and would act as a barrier, deterring people from exercising their rights there,’ Kate argues.

‘Unfortunately, you cannot walk on this common now, because it has already been fenced off and is apparently being used as a builder’s yard and for car-parking, without any consent from the Secretary of State. That is an abuse of common land. We have written to Suffolk County Council, which has powers to take action against unlawful works on common land, calling on it to take enforcement action here.

‘The Commons Bill, currently in the House of Lords, will give the public a welcome new power to take action against unlawful encroachments. We are promoting an amendment to the bill which would give local authorities a legal duty to enforce against such works.

‘Chalk Pit Common is an important piece of Suffolk history, the place where local people used to collect chalk. We shall continue to campaign for it to be restored as a public amenity,’ Kate declares.

top of page



Bridport path saved
8 November 2005

A public-inquiry inspector has rejected plans to move Bridport footpath 22 which runs to the west of West Bay Road. Open Spaces Society member Mr Vic Courtice, who lives close to the path, and his neighbours, fought the path-change at the public inquiry in September.

Says Mr Courtice: ‘I am delighted that we have won this long and stressful battle. The owners of the adjoining property wanted to move the path, which has been illegally blocked by flower-beds and sheds. Dorset County Council, the highway authority, has a legal duty to reopen the path but it did nothing. I went to the magistrates’ court for an order to make the council reopen the path. The judge ruled that if the diversion order did not succeed, the obstructions must be removed within 35 days. The diversion has not succeeded, and I eagerly await the reopening of the path within the next five weeks. We sincerely hope that it is all over, but we shall not rest until the footpath is physically reinstated. We shall always be ready to fight another day.

‘Fighting such cases is a costly business unless you have free legal support. It would have cost me around £20,000 if I had lost in the magistrates’ court. The cost to those who did lose will sadly be more,’ says Mr Courtice.  ‘The inspector, Erica Eden, rejected the diversion because she agreed with me and my fellow-objectors that it was substantially less convenient to the public. It was nearly three times longer that the original traffic-free route, half of which ran along a private track, and walkers had to share it with vehicular traffic. The inspector added that it might be particularly dangerous to children.

‘We congratulate the inspector for the fair and patient way in which she listened to the arguments on both sides, and on the firm control she maintained over the whole of the proceedings. It’s a great and just result,’ concludes Mr Courtice.

top of page



The fight against wind turbines on Pool Hill, Kirklees
8 November 2005

We have joined local residents in opposing a planning application for two wind-turbines at Pool Hill, west of Denby Dale. The society has submitted an objection to Kirklees Metropolitan Council’s planning officer.

Says Kate Ashbrook, our general secretary: ‘The turbines would be over 400 feet high, and one of them is near the top of the prominent Pool Hill. The area is criss-crossed with public paths, which are much enjoyed by local people and visitors, who walk, ride and cycle here. The turbines would be close to the Kirklees Way, the Dearne Way and other popular routes. People’s quiet enjoyment of these paths and the surrounding countryside, including the attractive Deffer Woods, would be severely affected,’ Kate continues.

‘Although located within Kirklees, the proposed turbines would be close to the Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council boundary, dominating the skyline to the north of the beautiful Cawthorne/ Silkstone/Hoylandswaine/Gunthwaite valley - and well beyond. Their presence would severely degrade the attractive landscape and unspoilt rural character of the famed ‘Pennine Barnsley’, seriously affecting Barnsley’s Council’s efforts to promote tourism in the rural western part of the borough.

‘We congratulate the local people for forming the Residents Against Windfarm group and for putting up such a good fight. We are pleased to back them in this important campaign, and urge Kirklees Council to reject this pernicious application,’ Kate concludes.

top of page



West Sussex path won
8 November 2005

Our West Sussex activist Ted White, with Albourne parish councillor Mrs Willow Prizeman, has won a public footpath at Albourne, near Hurstpierpoint in West Sussex.  Ted campaigned to have the 550-metre-long footpath added to the official (definitive) map of public rights of way and thus recognised as a public highway. The path runs south from the B2116 road between High Cross and Albourne Green.

West Sussex County Council backed the proposal by Mrs Prizeman and Mr White to record the footpath, but there was one objector, Mr A Hall of Little Copyhold at the southern end of the claimed route. A public inquiry was held in May. The inquiry inspector, Susan Doran, has ruled that the path should be added to the definitive map.

Says Ted White: ‘This is a great victory for local people, who have long enjoyed this route. Their use of it was challenged by Mr Hall, the recent owner of Little Copyhold. I gathered evidence from a number of local people who had used the route, uninterrupted and unchallenged, for a long period. This was sufficient to show that the route is indeed a public highway. It is outrageous that people who have newly moved into the area should have challenged the public’s use of this ancient track. We are delighted to have triumphed over their selfishness and to have confirmed that this track is available for everyone to enjoy,’ Ted declares.

Adds our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook: ‘Ted did a great job in championing this route. Local people, and the many visitors to the area, will benefit from his tenacity. Now they can enjoy this lovely path by right.’

top of page



We back parish council to save village green
26 October 2005

We are backing Bradfield Parish Council’s efforts to free Lee Moor Common village green from illegal enclosure.  The council, a member of the society, succeeded in persuading Sheffield City Council to register the two-acre site, known as Lee Moor Common, as a village green in 2003.

It is illegal to enclose a village green, yet the land has been fenced.   As soon as local people removed the gate and fencing, they were replaced.  The parish council took the perpetrator, Mr A Vickers of Dungworth, to court. At a hearing on 14 October he pleaded not guilty and was granted legal aid. The next hearing is scheduled for 20 December.

Says Kate Ashbrook, our general secretary: ‘We congratulate Bradfield Parish Council on its resolution in trying to free this land from unlawful enclosure.  Surprisingly, Mr Vickers did not object when the council applied to have the land registered as a green because it had been enjoyed by local people for recreation for at least 20 years. He must have known what was going on, yet he subsequently erected the fencing - even though it is illegal to enclose a green.

‘We have offered the council a donation towards its legal costs but clearly this is a big case for the council to take on. It is acting for the good of the community who want to have their green returned to them for quiet recreation and enjoyment.  We hope that the council will win the case on 20 December so that the fencing is removed,’ Kate declares.

top of page



We object to controversial Weymouth Relief Road scheme
26 October 2005

Dorset County Council is currently reviewing plans to build the controversial Weymouth Relief Road. The Open Spaces Society has joined forces with the Woodland Trust, Transport 2000, Campaign to Protect Rural England, Friends of the Earth and the Ramblers to object to the scheme, citing 33 reasons why it should not go ahead - see http://www.transport2000.org.uk/

The way this proposal can be defeated is to persuade the Council that there has to be a Public Inquiry (PI), run by an independent inspector, at which the need for the road is thoroughly examined. The impending Council meeting marks a critical stage in the battle for "withdrawal" of the scheme, and the more objections the Council receives the greater the chance it will be persuaded to recommend a PI.

Please read the 33 reasons why the road should not be built and then, if you are persuaded, send an email objection letter (for maximum effect, one letter per person, from personal email account). To do that you need to give your name, your address and a date and your name at the bottom of the email. The email address to send it to is: c.groves@dorsetcc.gov.uk - if you feel moved to write your own snail mail letter that might be better but it is not necessary.

The deadline for receipt of an objection is 4 November 2005, so please react now!

top of page



Private housing for historic Crystal Palace Park
26 October 2005

To read the article from our members, Crystal Palace Community Association, please click here and visit their website at www.cpca.org.uk

top of page



Cliff-top beauty spot saved
11 October 2005

Thanet District Council has thrown out plans to develop land at Cliff Cottage, on the cliff top at Pegwell near Ramsgate in Kent.

Says our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook: ‘We backed the Pegwell and District Association in opposing plans by a developer to erect two dwellings with garages close to the coastal path and the cliff edge.  Other objectors included the Ramblers’ Association, the Cyclists’ Touring Club and the Kent Wildlife Trust.

Kate continues: ‘The development would have destroyed people’s enjoyment of this lovely stretch of coastal path. It’s an important area for quiet recreation and especially popular with birdwatchers.  This just the sort of creeping development which we deplore. If these buildings had been allowed on this last bastion of green space, it would have set a terrible precedent for other green spaces in the area.’

Adds Eileen Randall, chairman of the Pegwell and District Association: ‘This is exceptional cliff-top land, which has always been a favourite country retreat for walkers and rambler, providing a welcome release from the confines of the town. The nearby former coastguard station dates from the 1820s and, with the attractive row of coastguard cottages, has a particular appeal to those interested in maritime history.  A walk along the coast here is a memorable and enjoyable experience. We treasure our coastland and will defend it against all development.

‘We are delighted that Thanet District Council recognised the importance of this area and rejected the plans,’ Eileen declares.

top of page



Dismay at land swap for new county hall
11 October 2005

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has agreed, much to our dismay, to a common-land swap at Brewery Road in Woking to enable Surrey County Council to build its new county hall there⁽¹⁾.

Says Kate Ashbrook, our general secretary: ‘We opposed Woking Borough Council’s application to remove the common-land status from its land at Brewery Road and to create an equivalent area of common at Deep Pool Lane, 2.5 kilometres away.  We considered that the proposed replacement land at Deep Pool Lane was too far from the existing common to be a fair swap, and that the disadvantage of distance should be mitigated by giving a larger area of land in exchange. The proposals affect walkers and riders, who have the right to enjoy the existing common land.  We are also concerned that the existing common apparently has unlawful encroachments on it, such as a car park and recycling facility. We argued that these should be removed before any exchange was even contemplated,’ Kate continues.

‘There were 63 objections to the proposals, which were considered by an inspector, Mr Peter Rosson, at a three-day public inquiry in November 2004 and January 2005. The objectors included the Horsell Residents’ Association, Chobham Common Riders’ Association and Defend Our Commons. The inspector recommended to the Secretary of State that the exchange be allowed, and she agreed.  This means that the land can be used for Surrey County Council’s new county hall, euphemistically referred to in the decision letter as its “new democratic headquarters”.

‘Unfortunately the law on exchange land favours the applicant who merely has to prove that the exchange is beneficial to the owner(s) of the respective lands and that the terms are just and reasonable.  In this case Woking Borough Council owns both areas of land and the District Valuer has concluded that removal of common-land status from the Brewery Road land will significantly increase its value, while imposition of common-land status at Deep Pool Lane will only marginally reduce its value. The council will profit financially, so clearly the exchange is beneficial to the owner.  The inspector and Secretary of State also concluded that the exchange was “just and reasonable”. We don’t agree, but that has to be a matter of opinion.

‘The government’s Commons Bill proposes amendments to the law on exchange of common land. However, these do not go far enough and we shall be pressing for the new law to require that any land given in exchange is equally advantageous to the public. That is the current test when common land is compulsorily purchased, and it should be the same test for voluntary exchange,’ says Kate. ‘If the law now required exchange land to be equally advantageous to the public, we might have saved the common at Brewery Road.’


^(1). The exchange of common land is under section 147 of the Inclosure Act 1845 which requires the Secretary of State for Environment to be satisfied that the proposed exchange is beneficial to the owners of the respective lands and that its terms are just and reasonable. However, the Secretary of State decided that she should also consider the effect of the proposals on third parties, including members of the public. The area of land to be taken is 0.2282 hectares and the proposed new common is the same size.


top of page



Plymouth City Council forced to open blocked path in court case
11 October 2005

Obstructed footpath 7 at the top of Radford Woods, photo taken 8 April 2005. Photo:  Dave Pawley

Our member John Emery is congratulated for forcing Plymouth City Council to reopen a blocked footpath at Hooe Hill, Plymstock: footpath number 7 at Barn Farm⁽¹⁾.  John single-handedly took Plymouth City Council to the magistrates’ court on 29 September because it had neglected its legal duty to protect the path from illegal obstruction. In December 2004 Mr Emery found the path illegally blocked by a gate, which was firmly secured by a boulder and tie.

Says John Emery: ‘This was a clear deterrent to the public who have a legal right to use this route, which is part of the popular Erme-Plym Trail. Furthermore the waymarkers had been removed and people were being encouraged to use an alternative, much less convenient path. I served a notice on the highway authority, Plymouth City Council, requesting it to remove the obstruction. The council claimed that the unofficial diversion was the correct route of the path, not the route about which I had complained. It refused to take any action. I therefore had to fight the case in the magistrates’ court.

‘The council employed a barrister, no doubt at considerable cost, while I defended myself,’ John explains.

Waymarking at entry of footpath 7  to Radford   Woods,  photo taken 7 April 2002 - this was the   photo which caused Plymouth City Council to   concede it had lost.         Photo:  David Pawley

 ‘Fortunately, the day before the hearing in the magistrates’ court, Dave Pawley of the Ramblers’ Association Plymouth Group found a photograph from April 2002 showing a waymark pointing along the route which I had asked the council to clear. On the day of the hearing, after seeing the photograph, the council had to admit that I was right after all, and that the official route was obstructed.  As a result, the council capitulated before we actually entered the courtroom. It has now agreed to serve a notice on the landowner to remove the illegal obstruction.

‘I am delighted to have saved this path for the public to enjoy,’ says John. ‘It is also a lesson to Plymouth City Council that it must look after its public rights of way, and it won’t be allowed to get away with neglecting them. For too long it has treated public paths as unimportant -  it has only recently employed a rights-of-way officer after the post had been vacant for many months.’

Adds our general secretary Kate Ashbrook: ‘We are fortunate that John Emery, at some personal financial risk, was prepared to take this action against the council.  Plymouth City Council should never have wasted thousands of pounds of ratepayers’ money fighting this case, but should have reopened the path as soon as John Emery made his complaint.  There are paths throughout England and Wales which are similarly abused and neglected, and we hope this gives a clear message to law-breaking landowners and laggard highway authorities that public paths must be properly cared for’, Kate argues.


⁽¹⁾. Under section 130A of the Highways Act 1980, a member of the public may serve a notice on the highway authority to remove certain illegal obstructions from public rights of way. If the authority refuses to act, the complainant can take it to the magistrates’ court for an order to remove the obstruction.

top of page



We help save Borstal village recreation fields
7 October 2005

We have helped to save the recreation fields at Borstal village, near Rochester in Kent, for the community.

At a crowded meeting on 19 September, Borstal residents united in protest against plans by the local education authority to build a school on 17 acres of protected open space. This included land bequeathed as playing fields by local benefactor Sir Oswald Short, the famous aircraft manufacturer.

The residents were strongly supported by our members Pat Wilson and Derek Munton who spoke at the meeting.

A majority of Medway councillors agreed that the authority’s application was flawed, being in conflict with the Local Plan and flying in the face of falling school-rolls.  The councillors recognised that difficult access through houses would be ‘an intrusion’ and ‘an imposition’ on residents.

Says the our activist for Medway, 88-year old Pat Wilson: ‘We are glad to have supported this splendid local effort and helped secure this important victory. This should ensure that Borstal’s green spaces can continue to be enjoyed by the public for ever.’

top of page



We back Bridport path-change opponents
7 October 2005

Local people who are fighting the proposal to move Bridport footpath 22 have been given our backing. The case will be heard at a public inquiry on Wednesday 28 September.

A member of the society, Mr Vic Courtice, who lives close to the path in West Bay Road, is a fierce opponent of the change. He says: ‘The path has been illegally blocked by flower-beds and sheds, and a lovely kissing-gate was removed. Now the owners of the adjoining property want to move the path around the obstructions instead of removing the obstructions themselves. They want the path to go along the border of three other properties, rather than beside their own.

‘Dorset County Council, the highway authority with a legal duty to keep paths clear of obstruction, has failed to enforce the removal of the obstructions. I went to the magistrates’ court for an order to require the council to deal with the blockages. The judge ruled that, if the diversion order does not succeed, the obstructions must be removed within 35 days.  I consider that the proposed diversion is inconvenient for the public. It is further and more circuitous. I shall argue that the existing route must be reopened as required by law. Path blockers must not profit from their misdemeanours.’

top of page



Halton Borough Council writes the longest paragraph
20 September 2005

We have accused Halton Borough Council of writing the longest-ever paragraph and being unclear in its dealings with the public. The council has published a public notice, announcing plans to move Widnes footpath 74, a public highway. Its description of the existing and proposed new paths covers one side of A4 paper and runs to about 630 words⁽¹⁾.

Says our general secretary Kate Ashbrook: ‘The description is presented in one long paragraph. It is not even a sentence, and it has minimal punctuation. How is the public expected to understand exactly what the council proposes to do with this public highway? We suspect the council hopes that people won’t understand it, and therefore won’t oppose it.  Halton Council intends to ask Halton magistrates’ court on 30 September to agree to the path being moved. Perhaps the magistrates will have difficulty understanding this too.

‘We have called on the council to rewrite the notice in plain English and then to republish it. And we have sent the papers to the Plain English Campaign as an example of how not to communicate with the public,’ Kate declares.


^1. The description of the existing and new paths, taken from the London Gazette of 25 August, is attached here:

top of page



Open Spaces Society rejoices at 'No' to wind turbines
8 September 2005

We are rejoicing that Neath Port Talbot Council has unanimously rejected the planning application for four wind turbines on Mynydd y Gwrhyd Common north-west of Swansea.

Our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook, says: ‘The turbines, with their associated substation, access road and other paraphernalia, would have been a great intrusion in this area. We objected most strongly to the planning application.  These works would have been a grotesque eyesore on this lovely exposed area of common land. They would have interfered with people’s right to walk and ride there. They would have destroyed the peace and tranquillity of this lovely area, and people’s quiet enjoyment of it.

‘Since the turbines were to be sited on common land, the applicants, Awel Aman Tawe, also would have needed consent from the National Assembly for Wales for works on common land, under section 194 of the Law of Property Act. We objected to that application too, since this is an abuse of common land.

‘We congratulate the local action group and all who were involved in opposing this application,’ Kate declares.



top of page



Don’t develop The Den
8 September 2005

We have deplored Teignmouth District Council’s decision to allow The Den on Teignmouth sea-front in Devon to be developed as the assembly site for the Spirit of Teignmouth trimaran.

Says Kate Ashbrook, our general secretary:  ‘The Den is a vital area of open space, hugely enjoyed by the residents of Teignmouth and the many visitors to the town.  A recent report⁽¹⁾ commissioned by Teignbridge District Council notes that Teignmouth is relatively poorly provided with local parks and amenity open space. We can’t afford to lose any green space in Teignmouth.  The report also records that The Den was the most popular open space in the district, among the residents as a whole and among young people,’ Kate declares. ‘The site is used for a variety of activities.

‘In any case, it may be unlawful to develop this land. The conveyance of the land, from the Earl of Devon to the “local board of Teignmouth” in 1869, states that the land will be kept “solely as a garden or pleasure ground for the use and benefit of the inhabitants of Teignmouth”. Clearly it cannot be used as a garden or pleasure ground if it has a 1,600-square metre building on it.  The council has asked the applicant to indemnify it against breach of the historical covenants, but that gives us little comfort.  We consider that The Den, which is just about the only open space in this area, is wholly inappropriate for this development,’ Kate concludes.


^(1). Open Space in Teignbridge, Bennett Leisure & Planning Ltd, July 2004

top of page



Historic Cotswold path saved
25 August 2005

Saved:  The route of bridleway BDR 9 past Pinbury Park, looking west towards the Frome valley.   Photo:  Roger Clare

Local activists have saved the historic public bridleway at Pinbury Park⁽¹⁾ from being moved to an inferior route.  The path runs along the south side of Pinbury Park, Duntisbourne Rouse, near Cirencester in the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Mr Allan Blackley, an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, ruled that the path should stay on its present route, after Cotswold District Council tried to move it, allegedly to improve the ‘security and privacy’ of the landowner, the Bathurst Estate.  The plan was opposed by two local people, Mrs Brenda Vines and Mr Roger Clare.

Says Brenda Vines, who lives at Churchdown and has known the area for more than 30 years: ‘The plan was to move the route to the south where the lovely view of Pinbury Park’s old Cotswold stone buildings, in their landscape setting, would be lost.

‘Pinbury Park was significant in the development of the Arts and Crafts Movement in the Cotswolds. I have recently witnessed a renewed interest in this movement and it is vital that places like Pinbury Park should be visible to the public.  I am delighted that this beautiful bridleway, which also affords lovely views down the Frome valley, has been saved for the enjoyment of future generations.  The proposed path didn’t present a fair alternative to the ancient track which is used now,’ declares Brenda.

Adds Gerry Stewart, our local correspondent for Cotswold district: ‘This is a just outcome to an order that should never have been made by Cotswold District Council.

‘The inspector has, as might be expected, balanced the personal interests of the occupier of Pinbury Park, who sought more privacy in an already quiet and secluded spot, against those members of the public who have used the route for centuries and merely wish to continue the quiet enjoyment of an ancient way in a corner of vernacular Cotswold countryside.  In his decision, the inspector said: “It seems to me that it would be a very substantial reduction in enjoyment of a noted monument if the bridleway was to be moved to a line which allows little more than distant and occasional glimpses of Pinbury’s attraction.”

Gerry concludes: ‘We congratulate Roger Clare and Brenda Vines for saving this wonderful route for the public to enjoy.’

⁽¹⁾ Pinbury Park and gardens are grade II (star), listed as of historic and architectural interest. Pinbury Park played a pivotal role in the development of the Cotswold Arts and Crafts Movement, having been occupied by Ernest and Sidney Barnsley and Ernest Gimson.

top of page



We deplore Dorset’s failure to act
25 August 2005

We have deplored Dorset County Councillors’ decision to take no action against unlawful fences on God’s Blessing Green, registered common land at Holt in East Dorset. The council’s Roads and Rights of Way Committee decided, on 14 July, to take no action because it considered that ‘there is insufficient public benefit to enforcement action’. The decision followed a site visit on 7 July.

Says our chairman, Rodney Legg, who attended the site visit: ‘We cannot understand how councillors can claim there is insufficient public benefit to removing fences which blight this important area of common land. Dorset County Council has powers to act and it should use them. Holt Parish Council also regarded this as a bad precedent and asked the county council to intervene.

‘At present the public has no powers to take enforcement action against unlawful works on common land. However, the Commons Bill, currently going through Parliament, will give people that power, subject to various constraints,’ Rodney observes. ‘Once the Bill becomes law we shall have to see whether the Open Spaces Society does have the power to take action on behalf of the public. If we do have the power, we shall use it at God’s Blessing Green - and the many other places where county councils have failed to remove unlawful works. But it is outrageous that it should be left to a small, ill-resourced charity to act in the public interest when that is the job of Dorset County Council,’ Rodney declares.

top of page



Fencing plan rejected on Hertfordshire common
25 August 2005

We are delighted that the Secretary of State for Environment has rejected a plan to enclose Well Green Common at Brickendon in Hertfordshire. We objected to an application from Mr N Simpson of Bourne Orchard, Brickendon, to erect post and rail fencing, 230 metres long, around the common. The fencing was already, unlawfully, in place, having been erected in 2003.  The application to the Secretary of State for Environment was made under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925, for works on common land.

Says our case officer, Nicola Hodgson: ‘We opposed the plan because the fencing detracts from the open character of the area and its amenity value to the village. It also impedes access to the common and to the two public paths which cross the land.  At the end of October the public will have the right to walk over the whole common, under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and the fence would inhibit people from exercising that right,’ declares Nicola.

‘We were not alone in fighting this. There were 26 objectors including Hertfordshire County Council, Brickendon Liberty Parish Council, the East Hertfordshire Footpath Society and the Ramblers’ Association. We were angry that the fencing had been erected, unlawfully, two years ago and that it took some time for the owner to make the application to regularise it,’ Nicola continues.  ‘Mr Simpson alleged that he needed fencing to contain livestock and to prevent the illegal occupation of the land by travellers. However, we are delighted that the Secretary of State has observed that the applicant had not demonstrated that he intended to place animals on the land. Nor had he provided evidence of any threat from illegal occupation of the land.  The Secretary of State agreed with us that the proposed fence would be a visual intrusion and would lead to loss of open space, and that it appeared to have no benefit to the neighbourhood. 

'We have written to the applicant to ask him to remove the unlawful fencing, and have urged Hertfordshire County Council to pursue this.

‘We hope that soon this lovely common will be freed of the unlawful fencing,’ Nicola declares.

top of page



We deplore dog ban in West Dart valley
29 July 2005

We have deplored the Dartmoor National Park Authority’s decision to ban dogs from new access land in the West Dart valley⁽¹⁾. The park has decided that dogs would threaten otters and spawning salmon.

Says our chairman, Rodney Legg: ‘We were consulted by the national park authority on its proposal to ban dogs completely from the new access land in the West Dart valley, between Two Bridges and Huccaby. We objected, along with the Ramblers’ Association and a number of individuals.

‘While we support wildlife conservation and the occasional need to restrict public access for wildlife reasons where that need is proven, we considered that here the case had not been made for such a draconian restriction. The documents supporting the application did not prove that dogs must be banned. We reminded the national park authority that the rules are that any restriction on access land must be “the least restrictive option”. We said that the least restrictive option would be to keep dogs on leads at all times. Indeed, the national park itself had suggested this and then dismissed it, largely because a total ban was easier to monitor,’ says Rodney.

‘This ban will mean that many people, who will only walk with their dogs, are in effect outlawed from this area. If you own a dog it is pretty pointless to go for a walk without it. Moreover, we are dismayed that the national park authority, in imposing a dog ban, is not prepared to negotiate with the landowners to stop the hunt coming through—yet hounds will cause far more damage to wildlife than mere dog-walkers. The Open Spaces Society has no view on hunting, but clearly this is grossly unfair,’ Rodney declares.

‘We consider that, in the light of all the objections, the national park authority’s members should have reconsidered the matter in public at a meeting. Yet the decision appears to have been made by officers. We note that the ban will be reviewed after three years and trust it will then be lifted,’ Rodney concludes.


1. The new right to walk on access land (ie common land or open country—mountain, moor, heath and down) is granted by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. If it is proposed to prevent or restrict access, for a period exceeding six months, on land which has been mapped as access land on the maps prepared under the Act, the national park authority or the Countryside Agency must consider the matter.

In this case the relevant authority is the Dartmoor National Park Authority which, with English Nature, considered a restriction to be necessary. The national park authority consulted prescribed organisations such as the Open Spaces Society. The authority then had to decide, in the light of the representations whether to grant the proposed ban on dogs.


top of page



Last plea to Dorset County Councillors
18 July 2005

Dorset County Councillors and staff at the site meeting on 7 July 2005

We have made a last plea to Dorset County Councillors to remove unlawful fences from God’s Blessing Green⁽¹⁾, registered common land at Holt in East Dorset. The society attended a site visit with the council on 7 July, and the council will reach its decision on 14 July.

Says Rodney Legg, our chairman and top Dorset historian:  ‘We have argued long and hard that the fencing is unlawful, ever since our member, Holt Parish Council, told us about it last year. The county council has the power to take enforcement action and it should set an example by doing so. This lovely green space has been preserved for centuries and we deplore this land-grab.  Holt Parish Council says that there are 5,000 acres of common land in the parish and, if this landowner gets away with fencing God’s Blessing Green, others will follow suit.

‘The land used to belong to the National Trust,’ Rodney continues. ‘As a member of the trust’s council I opposed the sale in 2002, arguing that it was unlawful. Unfortunately the trust ignored me - and has got us into a fine old mess.  Now it’s for Dorset County Council to get us out of that mess.

‘Dorset County Council officials have made a string of excuses for doing nothing, but we have countered them all. We urge the councillors to resolve next Thursday to get rid of the unsightly, unlawful fencing. Then God’s Blessing Green can, once again, be enjoyed by the public,’ Rodney concludes.


1. God’s Blessing Green is said to have got its name when Cromwell’s army gathered here and was given God’s blessing before marching to Poole and Purbeck in 1645.

top of page



Fairwood Common to be ‘suburbanised’
18 July 2005

The National Assembly for Wales has allowed development on Fairwood Common, at Three Crosses, Swansea. We objected to an application from Waterstone Homes Ltd to extend a public highway (Dukefield) on the common, provide access to new dwellings, erect street lights there and create a private access and vehicle hard-standing.  The application, under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925, was also opposed by an adjoining landowner, Mr D Jenkins, and the Gower Society.

Says Nicola Hodgson, our case officer,: ‘Common land should be for the public to enjoy - especially now that we all have the right to walk there under the Countryside and Rights of way Act 2000.  This development will suburbanise the common and will be only for private benefit. As the Gower Society says in its objection, the street-lighting will also cause light pollution in the Gower Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

‘We are deeply disappointed that the National Assembly for Wales has approved this application. We cannot understand how it can claim that the development will not suburbanise the common, nor that it will not have an adverse effect on people’s access to it for air and exercise.  Common land should be preserved for everyone to enjoy, not lost to development,’ Nicola declares.

top of page



We save Exmoor footpath
14 July 2005

Single-handedly, we have saved a public footpath at Chidgley Farm, in the parish of Old Cleeve, south of Watchet. Somerset County Council wanted to move the path onto an inferior route, and this was backed by the Exmoor National Park Authority and Old Cleeve and Nettlecombe Parish Councils.  Represented by our local correspondent John Sims of Brompton Regis, we were the lone objector at the public inquiry held in July 2004.

Says John Sims: ‘We are delighted that the inquiry inspector, Mark Yates, refused to allow the path to be moved. He agreed with us that the proposed alternative was inferior for the public. It takes walkers on a circuitous route and, for part of the way, it is alongside the B3190 road,’ John explains. ‘The existing route, on the other hand, is a pleasant and direct path between Chidgley Farm and Nettlecombe Court.

‘The county council and landowners claimed that the path runs close to the house, livestock buildings and a workshop. The inspector agreed that most of these claims were exaggerated.  The inspector agreed with us that the proposed diversion is steeper. It is also less pleasant, because it is crosses a new access road where there are fencing and hedges restricting views and making the route awkward to walk. Yet no provision has been made for this in the official order to move the path.

‘It is excellent that the old path can stay where it is and people can continue to enjoy it,’ John concludes.

top of page



Blot on Sussex beauty-spot path
14 July 2005

Wadhurst 56, newly fenced in. Photo:  David Norris

We have deplored the threat to the popular Sussex Border Path⁽¹⁾ by a development at Buckhurst Place near Wadhurst in East Sussex in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Earlier in June Wealden District Council gave planning permission for the erection of stables to the rear of 6 Buckhurst Place, and appeared to ignore the fact that the development would involve vehicular use and fencing of the popular footpath.

Says our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook : ‘The applicant, Mr Tim Hugo, claimed that the development needed no new vehicular or pedestrian access, and that he did not propose to alter any existing public rights of way.   In fact, a new vehicular access has been created on the line of the path, and the existing public right of way has been adversely affected. To gain access to the new stables, people must drive on the Sussex Border Path. Walkers now have to share the route with large horseboxes.

‘We drew this to the council’s attention, but it apparently ignored the existence of this lovely path and gave planning permission.  Now the path has been enclosed with stock-fencing which spoils the view and destroys walkers’ experience on this beautiful route. Instead of having a lovely open feeling, they are in an enclosed area.

‘We deeply regret that Wealden District Council did not consider the interests of walkers, for whom the Border Path is a valued asset, before it granted the planning permission,’ Kate declares.


1. The Sussex Border Path is 159 miles long and runs from Thorney Island in West Sussex to Rye in East Sussex.

top of page



Path changes on charity land
22 June 2005

Marston Moretaine footpath 16 illegally blocked by a padlocked gate. Photo:  Mike Clarke

We are fighting plans to move public paths which cross land owned by the Marston Vale Trust, at Stewartby near Bedford. The existing routes are illegally blocked. Says our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook: ‘Along with the Bedfordshire Rights of Way Association we have objected to the changes because the new routes are less direct and less convenient to the public. Moreover, walkers will be forced to share paths with cyclists, which can lead to conflict. In any case, the current routes - which are highways in law just like any road - are illegally obstructed, not only by the construction of the lake some years ago, but also by a padlocked gate and a ditch.

‘Yet Marston Vale Trust has as its charitable objects “the improvement, protection and preservation of Marston Vale and the surrounding area for the better development of the rural environment; and the provision of public recreational and other facilities in Marston Vale and the surrounding area to members of the public at large in the interests of education or social welfare”. ‘The presence of blocked paths on the trust’s land conflicts with its commendable objects,’ Kate observes.

‘We have called on Bedfordshire County Council, the highway authority with a duty to ensure paths are kept open, to deal with the path problems as a matter of urgency.  The Marston Vale Trust should be setting an example to others and fulfilling its charitable objects,’ Kate declares.

top of page



We fight development on Suffolk common
8 June 2005

We are fighting plans by Mr Nigel Franklin to build a dwelling and garage on registered common land, known as Chalk Pit Common, at Thurston, near Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk.

The society was consulted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on Mr Franklin’s application to the Secretary of State to build on the common.

Says Kate Ashbrook, our general secretary: ‘Mr Franklin wants to build on Chalk Pit Common. This is not only an important piece of Suffolk history, the place where local people used to collect chalk, but it should also now be a public amenity.  Later this year we shall have the right to walk on all common land, under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. You can hardly walk on this common because it has already been fenced off and is apparently being used as a builder’s yard and for car-parking, without any consent from the Secretary of State. That is an abuse of common land.

‘The land should be restored and opened to the public. We have called on the Secretary of State for Environment to reject the application to build on the common, and shall be urging Suffolk County Council to ensure the land is restored to its former state.

top of page



Fencing plan rejected on Painswick Hill Common
2 June 2005

The Secretary of State for Environment has rejected a plan to enclose part of Painswick Hill Common near Stroud in Gloucestershire.  The Open Spaces Society objected to an application from Mr Paul Sellick of Folly Cottage, Painswick Beacon, to erect post-and-rail fencing with illuminated strips around part of the common, allegedly to improve road safety on the B4073 road which runs alongside it.  The application to the Secretary of State for Environment was made under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925, for works on common land.

Says our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook: ‘We opposed the plan because the fencing would have been a severe eyesore on a prominent hillside in the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It would have made the common appear to be private property - part of the garden of Folly Cottage - which it patently is not.  Soon the public will have a legal right to walk over this land, under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, and such fencing would deter public use.

‘There were many objectors to the proposal, including Painswick Parish Council, Painswick Beacon Conservation Group and two people with registered common rights on the land.  The Secretary of State considered that the fence would make the enclosed land look like part of Mr Sellick’s property and that there was no apparent benefit to the neighbourhood but merely to Mr Sellick. Furthermore, Mr Sellick had produced little evidence that there was a problem with road safety.

‘We are delighted that the application has been rejected. Common land should be for public not private benefit and, clearly, Mr Sellick was the only person to benefit from the proposed fencing.’

top of page



We fight Lambeth path closure
2 June 2005

We are fighting plans by Lambeth Council to close Brooklands Passage, which links two residential areas between Wandsworth Road and New Covent Garden.

Says Kate Ashbrook, our general secretary:  ‘The only legal grounds on which the council can close the path are that it is not needed for public use. It clearly is needed,  I have seen people walking the path, which is a pleasant, quiet short-cut between two residential areas, away from busy roads.  It is also a short-cut from the residential streets to Battersea Park and the shops.  If that route is closed, people will be forced to use a long detour, via Wandsworth Road which is noisy and full of traffic and will cause walkers considerable inconvenience,’ Kate declares.

‘The council alleges it must close the route on grounds of criminal and anti-social behaviour. That is not a legitimate ground in law for closing a public path under this piece of legislation. In any case, we have seen no evidence of such activity.  The council should make the path well-lit and welcoming to the public, so that people feel safe and confident when they use it, and potential criminals are deterred because they know that bona fide members of the public using the path will see them.

‘We have called the council to abandon its plan to close the route and we shall fight the closure, at a public inquiry if necessary,’ Kate concludes.

top of page



Pay-to-walk company fights right to roam
2 June 2005

Ingleton Scenery Company Ltd, which charges people £1 a mile to walk through a Yorkshire Dales beauty spot, plans to close free access to one of Britain’s most famous waterfalls.  Ingleton Scenery is challenging the new right to roam, due to take effect in the Yorkshire Dales National Park on 28 May this year, because it wants to continue charging people to use the Ingleton Waterfalls Walk, which includes the celebrated Thornton Force.

We have objected to an application from the company to ban public access from Raven Ray Pasture and Quarry Wood⁽¹⁾. Ingleton Scenery claims that, if people have the right to walk on this land, they can reach the river from the public road and may then see the waterfalls without paying.

‘So what?’ says Kate Ashbrook, our general secretary. ‘The new right of access applies to all mountain, moor, heath, down and common land in England and Wales. While the Countryside and Rights of Way Act allows landowners and others with a legal interest in the land to apply for long-term restrictions on access, for land management and other reasons where this can be justified, we do not consider that enabling them to continue making money from the landscape is legitimate.  Waterfalls are natural features which everyone should be able to enjoy, without having to pay. Thornton Force is the jewel in the crown. The great scholar of the Dales, the late Dr Arthur Raistrick, wrote of the geology of these falls:

The limestones are seen resting on the slates in a clear line which a hand can span with thumb and little finger, touching worlds more than 300 million years apart. No one with imagination can be insensitive to this experience.

‘But Ingleton Scenery proposes to milk the experience for all it can,’ Kate continues. ‘It charges £3.50 a head for a walk which it claims is four and a half miles long. In fact one mile of this is on public highways, which are open to all, so the private section is only three and a half miles. Thus it is charging £1 a mile—an expensive walk⁽²⁾. It is perfectly legitimate for a landowner to charge for facilities such as car-parks and toilets, but not just to see the landscape and breathe the air,’ Kate argues.

‘We have called on the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, which will make the decision on the application, to refuse to ban access from these two sites, so that the public can walk freely there.

‘Ingleton Scenery should understand that only God or geology can make a waterfall,’ Kate declares.


1. The new right to walk on access land (ie common land or open country—mountain, moor, heath and down) is granted by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. If a landowner wishes to prevent or restrict access, for a period exceeding six months, on land which has been mapped as access land on the maps prepared under the Act, he must apply to the national park authority or the Countryside Agency, which consults prescribed organisations such as the Open Spaces Society. The authority then decides whether to grant the closure or restriction. Quarry Wood is registered common land, and Raven Ray Pasture is mapped as open country.

2. The current charges for the Ingleton Waterfalls Walk are £3.50 per adult, £1.50 per child, or £7 for family (two adults and up to three children). The walk is from Ingleton alongside the River Twiss, along Twistleton Lane, a public highway, and