OSS Home page

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

  LOCAL NEWS 2006

Local news 2006

We help to save Inskip footpath - 20 December 2006
We join fight against blight on Devon landscape - 18 December 2006
Playgolf's plan thwarted to move blocked public path - 18 December 2006
Fencing rejected on North Wales common - 5 December 2006
Waste dump on East Sussex common - 5 December 2006
Reopen blocked footpath - 8 November 2006
Fight for community's wood - 25 October 2006
Disappointing decision to fence Barlaston Common -17 October 2006
Church Langley path-change - 9 October 2006
Herefordshire common saved from urbanisation - 13 September 2006
Fight to save Harden Moor - 12 September 2006
We fight Pitshill path changes - 12 September 2006
Fencing rejected on Swansea common - 1 September 2006
Odell bridleway no threat to security - 17 August 2006
Somerset slated for landowner bias - 26 July 2006
We oppose development on Kent cliff - 26 July 2006
Outrage at hilltop mast - 21 July 2006
Henley Festival blocks Thames towpath - 11 July 2006
Call for Wetley Moor action plan - 28 June 2006
Victory at Haytor, Dartmoor - 28 June 2006
Castle Cove Path, Dartmouth - 28 June 2006
Mablethorpe footpath rescue - 28 June 2006
Herefordshire common to be fenced - 28 June 2006
Cambrian catastrophe - 12 June 2006
Fencing cannot stop public recreation - 12 June 2006
Unauthorised fencing of common land - 9 June 2006
Deplorable fencing of Norfolk Common - 9 June 2006
Beckley path saved - 9 June 2006
We deplore decision to fence Wolvercote Green - 9 June 2006
Dismay at land swap for wind turbines - 31 May 2006
We fight land swap on West Sussex common - 10 May 2006
Victory on Dorset common - 8 May 2006
We deplore development on Dartmoor common - 8 May 2006
London's special square saved from abuse - 13 April 2006
We fight fencing plan on East Sussex common - 12 April 2006
Public paths could become private preserves - 5 April 2006
We scupper Salford's path-closure plans - 5 April 2006
We fight mast on hilltop common - 31 March 2006
Kent school-path closure pursued - 31 March 2006
We help save St Mary Bourne footpath - 31 March 2006
Henley Festival backs down from Thames path closure - 31 March 2006
Festival to close Thames path - 30 March 2006
Remedy for inner London's lost ways - 30 March 2006
Coombe Down, Dartmoor opening soon - 30 March 2006
We call on Kent to reject school-path closure - 15 February 2006
Public to be banned from beauty spot? - 14 February 2006
Fencing plan rejected on Allendale Common - 7 February 2006
Nina Smith - 31 January 2006
School path saved at Hoar Cross - 31 January 2006
We scupper city’s crime-path closure - 26 January 2006
Victory against opencast-mine - 19 January 2006



 

See News Index Page for news from previous years

top of page

We help to save Inskip footpath
20 December 2006

Inskip footpath 27 in Lancashire is not to be moved.  Last month Wyre Borough Council’s licensing committee ruled that the path should not be moved away from Peel House on Hornby Lane, where it has been blocked by unopenable gates. The plan was opposed by Inskip-with-Sowerby Parish Council and ourselves, among others.

Wyre Council’s committee was not satisfied that there was good reason to change the existing footpath network which has existed for many years. Walkers would be disadvantaged because they would have to walk along sections of Hornby Lane and Moss Lane, which they must share with vehicles. So the committee rejected the plan.

While we are delighted that the route is not to be moved, we feel that the gates and wall which have been erected across the path are intimidating to walkers. We hope the public will use and enjoy the path as is their right.

The Open Spaces Society will be watching to ensure there is no further abuse of this path, and will swing into action to defend it.
 

top of page

We join fight against blight on Devon landscape
18 December 2006

We have joined the fight against wind turbines at Batworthy Cross, near Knowstone, between Tiverton and Barnstaple, in North Devon. The society has submitted a strong objection to North Devon District Council, against the plan by NPower Renewables to erect nine, 103-metre high wind turbines there.

Says Kate Ashbrook, our general secretary: ‘these massive turbines will be a terrible blot on the landscape, being visible for miles around.  The site is next to the lovely, ancient commons and open land of Haresdown, Knowstone and Rackenford Moors, where the public now has the right to walk, under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. People’s quiet enjoyment of these lovely areas will be ruined by this gross intrusion on the landscape.

‘Furthermore the turbines are close to the Two Moors Way long-distance path, which runs across and between the Dartmoor and Exmoor National Parks, which attracts many people each year. The turbines will no doubt have a detrimental effect on the economy of the area, which depends on tourism, because people will decide not to visit what has become an industrial landscape,’ Kate concludes.

The campaign is led by our member the Two Moors Campaign.
 

top of page

Playgolf's plan thwarted to move blocked public path
18 December 2006

PlayGolf has been refused permission to move a public path at Brent’s Northwick Park golf-course, which has been illegally blocked by the driving range and fencing.  An inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Mrs Helen Slade, took the decision after a hearing in November. There the Open Spaces Society appeared as an objector, represented by local resident Mrs Gaynor Lloyd.

Says our general secretary Kate Ashbrook: ‘Northwick Park is important metropolitan open land and public open space, which should be available to the public for recreation. Unfortunately, surveys show that this formerly wildlife-rich site has suffered a reduction in the number of species due to the manner of its development by PlayGolf in joint venture with Brent Council.

‘We were dismayed when Brent Council, the landowner, allowed a golf course to be developed there. The park is crossed by public paths and one of them, number 37, has been illegally obstructed by the development of the golf course. In particular, the path is blocked by the golf driving-range and its substantial fencing—visible on “Google Earth”, as the inspector pointed out.  The council then applied to move the path around the development, rather than requiring the path to be reopened in accordance with its legal duty.

‘At the hearing, we argued that it was not in the public’s interest to move the path, and that part of the proposed new route followed an existing path, so it was in effect a closure not a diversion,’ Kate argues.  ‘The existing route is direct and purposeful and much more useful to the public. The proposed alternative route is winding, longer and difficult to follow. This would be bad enough in most circumstances, but it’s a serious problem where a new path is designed to cross a six-hole, tightly-confined golf course, intended for serious golfers, but open to the public and actually also used by novices. Worse still, the contours of the course hide the golfers who are teeing off from the public using the footpath, and vice versa.  Overall it was the safety issue that convinced the inspector. The new line of path runs straight across one fairway and adjoins the greens of two others. They could present significant risks to the public.

‘Astonishingly, it was revealed at the hearing that neither the council nor the representative from PlayGolf present were even aware of official guidance from the English Golf Union or the Health and Safety Executive on the design of new golf courses in relation to public paths.  Furthermore, another path, number 36, which runs alongside the golf course has been made difficult to walk due to fencing and overgrowth.  The inspector concluded that the application to move the path should be rejected.

‘The Open Spaces Society will now urge Brent Council to call a high-level meeting of all the interests to discuss how the right of public access across the golf course may be restored. We are determined to find a solution to this sorry story,’ Kate concludes
 

top of page

Fencing rejected on North Wales common
1 December 2006

The National Assembly for Wales has refused an application for fencing on Bylchau Common, near the Sportsman’s Arms, on the Hiraethog Moors, on the Denbighshire/ Conwy border. The application was made by the Farmers’ Union of Wales, under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925, for works on common land.

Says our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook: ‘We objected to the proposed fencing on 383 square metres of the common, because it would have completely enclosed the common, making it into a paddock.  The fencing would have spoilt the natural beauty of the area and restricted the public’s right to walk here.

‘The National Assembly for Wales agreed with us. Mr Stephen Jones, head of the assembly’s planning division, wrote in his decision letter:

“…the provision of this length of fencing would complete the enclosure of the common—and in my opinion would not only strengthen the perception that the public were excluded from the land but also that the land enclosed by the fencing was private land…the fencing would give the impression not only of enclosing the land but also reduce its openness and accessibility.”’

Kate continues: ‘Even though Mr Jones accepted the applicant’s arguments that the fencing would prevent sheep from straying onto the adjoining A543 road (from Denbigh to Pentrefoelas), he felt that there was no evidence that the straying occurred frequently or to such an extent as to warrant the fencing.

‘This is an excellent decision which recognises the special nature of commons and their value both to the Welsh landscape and to people’s quiet enjoyment of it,’ concludes Kate.
 

top of page

Waste dump on East Sussex common
5 December 2006

We are objecting to a planning application from Telscombe Town Council to dump contaminated waste on Telscombe Tye Common, which runs down to the coast east of Brighton.

Says our spokesman Bob Milton: ‘We deplore this abuse of the common. Common land is very special, it has remained largely undisturbed and unspoilt for centuries. It cannot be built on or enclosed without the consent of the Secretary of State for the Environment.  Telscombe Tye is a wonderful open area, enjoyed by walkers and riders, with magnificent views of the sea and the surrounding downland.

‘Contaminated earth bunds were put here unlawfully two years ago. Now the plan is to reshape them and to add to them a further 16,000 tonnes, making a total of 25,000 tonnes of waste, with 40 lorries a day from Brighton, over a two-year period.  Of course this will require the Secretary of State’s consent for works on common land as well as planning permission.  It is a gross abuse of this lovely common, and we shall fight it,’ Bob declares.

In April 2006 Bob appeared at a public inquiry, at which he represented the society as an objector to an application to the Secretary of State for the Environment for works on the common. The application was made by the landowner, Telscombe Town Council, for the erection of fencing along both sides of a track across the common and alongside the ancient Cross Dyke which forms the eastern boundary of the common. The decision is awaited.
 

top of page

Reopen blocked footpath
8 November 2006

We have called for Inskip footpath 27 in Lancashire to be reopened, not moved.  On Thursday 9 November, Wyre Borough Council’s licensing committee will decide whether to proceed with plans to move the footpath away from Peel House on Hornby Lane, where it has been blocked by unopenable gates.

Says our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook: ‘The council is trying to move a blocked path away from the obstruction instead of removing the obstruction itself, which is the legal requirement. We have called on Lancashire County Council, the highway authority with a duty to ensure public paths are kept free of obstructions, to take action. So far it has failed to do so.

‘The occupier of the land crossed by the path should not be allowed to get away with abusing the route. If the path is moved, this will not only mean that footpath 27 is put onto an inferior, out-of-the-way route, but it will be a message to other landowners that they can block paths and the council will do nothing.  If Wyre Borough Council decides to proceed with its plans to move the path in the face of objections, the matter will go to a public inquiry. It has already been opposed by Inskip-with-Sowerby Parish Council. The Open Spaces Society will join the battle to save this route,’ Kate declares.

‘We call on the councillors on Thursday to see sense and to uphold the public interest by ensuring that this path remains on its present route and is reopened for everyone to enjoy,’ concludes Kate.

See latest news article - 20 December 2006
 

top of page

Fight for community’s wood
25 October 2006

We have joined the campaign to save Longridge Wood on Stainton Way at Marton in Middlesbrough. The wood, which is owned by Middlesbrough Council, is threatened by housing development. The society has written to Mayor Mallon, the directly elected mayor of Middlesbrough Council, calling on him to ensure the council safeguards the wood for the community.

Says our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook: ‘This three- acre woodland has, for many years, been of great importance to local people, who enjoy it for quiet recreation. The wood is rich in wildlife, and it is a vital lung in an urban area which is gravely deficient in public open space and especially in woodland.  Longridge Wood provides a place where children can, in safety, discover the joys of the outdoors and learn about nature. It would be a tragedy if it were to be sold, developed and no longer available to the community.

‘We appreciate that the wood has been identified in the local plan as land for residential development, but since it was first identified as such, 25 years ago, the land’s character has changed markedly.  Furthermore, the Middlesbrough Green Spaces Strategy states that “we have the smallest number of trees in the North East” and that there is here “a deficiency of woodland”. That makes Longridge Wood even more precious.  The local plan should recognise that this is now valued community woodland. The council should abandon all idea of sale and development, and instead designate the land as public open space,’ Kate concludes.


Link to Longridge Wood's website www.spanglefish.com/LongridgeWoods
 

top of page

Disappointing decision to fence Barlaston Common
17 October 2006

We regret the Secretary of State for Environment’s decision to allow Barlaston Common, at Fulford near Stafford, to be fenced for at least 20 years.

Stafford Borough Council, which owns and manages the common, applied to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for consent to erect a total of 2,375 metres (nearly one and a half miles) of post-and-wire fencing around two-thirds of the common to allow grazing to take place there⁽¹⁾. The application has been approved for the fencing to remain for 20 years.

Says Harry Scott, the society’s representative for Staffordshire: ‘We are disappointed by this decision. We do not believe the council fully considered all the alternatives for the management of the common before opting for fencing. The fencing around the common will be a physical and psychological barrier to public access. Despite the proposed gates and stiles, the fencing will give a closed-in feeling in this public open space.

‘Unfortunately, although we are the leading organisation concerned with the protection, management and public enjoyment of common land, Stafford Borough Council failed to consult us before submitting its application. We were therefore unable to influence it. We said we were prepared to reconsider our objection if the application was amended to allow fencing for ten years only, after which it would be reviewed. We consider 20 years to be far too long.

‘There are few commons left which are open and unenclosed, and we are sorry that Barlaston Common will no longer be one of them,’ Harry declares.

Adds Kate Ashbrook, the society’s general secretary: ‘There is a big question-mark over whether the council is legally entitled to erect the fencing. The common has a scheme of management under the Commons Act 1899 and the wording of that scheme is ambiguous as to whether fencing can be erected on the common, even with the Secretary of State’s consent. In his decision letter, the Secretary of State does draw attention to this, and warns the council that his consent “does not necessarily make legal works that are prohibited by the scheme of management…It is for applicants to satisfy themselves that the works they propose can be lawfully undertaken, apart from that section”.  We have therefore written to the council to remind it of this and to urge it to obtain its own legal advice before taking any further action,’ Kate concludes.


^(1). Under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925, works on common land need the consent of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In deciding whether to give consent, the secretary of state must take account of ‘the benefit of the neighbourhood’.
 

top of page

Church Langley path-change
9 October 2006

We have joined with the Church Langley Community Association in fighting to prevent Church Langley footpath 175, in Harlow, Essex, from being moved.  Harlow District Council has made a legal order to divert the path onto a nearby route. However, the path is already illegally blocked by a garden fence, and the objectors say that the path should be cleared, not moved to an inferior route.

Says our general secretary Kate Ashbrook: ‘Essex County Council has a legal duty to prevent public paths from being blocked. It should take action to reopen the route.  This is the fourth order made by Harlow District Council. A previous diversion order and an extinguishment order were abandoned due to technical problems. A third order, a diversion order, was made in 2003 and rejected by an inspector following a public inquiry in 2004,’ explains Kate.

‘The inquiry inspector, Mrs Helen Slade, commented in her decision letter: “It is clear…that it has been habitual for the existing definitive [official] routes in Harlow to be obstructed during the course of development.”  That’s quite a severe criticism of the district council,’ Kate observes.  ‘The inspector rejected the order because the proposed diversion was already adopted by the council and was therefore a public highway, so the council was, in effect, wanting to close a public footpath. 

The new order is almost identical to the old one, and we shall once again oppose it and call for the official route to be reopened as required by law. It is, after all, a public highway just like any road,’ Kate declares. ‘In making this series of orders to move or close the path, Harlow District Council has wasted vast sums of public money. It would have been cheaper to reinstate the route,’ she concludes.
 

top of page

Herefordshire common saved from urbanisation
13 September 2006

The stone track over the common,  for which retrospective permission was sought .

An application to construct a stone track over Upper Grove Common at Sellack, north-west of Ross-on-Wye in Herefordshire, has been withdrawn.

Says our general secretary Kate Ashbrook: ‘We strongly objected to this application for works on the common, when we were consulted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 

Mr Daniel Webb, of Rose Cottage, Upper Grove Common, applied to lay stone on a track which runs to his property over the common. We were dismayed to discover that the application was retrospective—the stone was already in place before consent was even sought.  We opposed this because the stone track had urbanised this pleasant, rural common and was a visual intrusion. Furthermore, it would encourage others similarly to desecrate the common by creating stone tracks,’ Kate argues.  ‘In any case, we considered it unlikely that the owner had a right to drive vehicles along the track. We called on Defra to reject the application and to ensure the common was restored to its former, unspoilt state.

‘After only a couple of weeks, we were delighted to hear from Defra that the application had been withdrawn and “it has been indicated that the stone is being removed”. This may well be as a result of our letter.

‘The Open Spaces society is delighted to have helped save this lovely common from urbanisation,’ Kate declares.
 

top of page

Fight to save Harden Moor
12 September 2006

Cullingworth residents protest at the proposed sale of Harden Moor, their much loved access-land. Photo: Bob Smith, Keighley News.

We have added our weight to the battle to save Harden Moor, near Cullingworth, south-east of Keighley in West Yorkshire, from being devastated by quarrying. Bradford Metropolitan District Council is considering selling the land to the developer Skipton Properties, to enable it to extend Midgeham Cliff End Quarry over much of the site.

Says our general secretary Kate Ashbrook: ‘We have called on Bradford Council to abandon any plans of selling this wonderful moor.  This stretch of land is of immense importance to local people and visitors. It is of particular value being a significant area of open space close to urban communities, who need this vital breathing-space. It has been recorded as open-access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and the public has the legal right to walk over every square inch of it and to enjoy it for quiet recreation. It would be a tragedy if it were to be sacrificed for quarrying,’ declares Kate.

‘It is vital that this land remains in the ownership of the council, so that it can be protected and properly managed for the benefit of the public. There is no overriding reason why the land should be quarried when that particular type of stone is available elsewhere in the neighbourhood. It would be outrageous to allow this unique area of much-loved public open space to be destroyed for short-term private gain.

‘We congratulate the local residents on their campaign and are pleased to add our clout, as a long-standing, national organisation, to help them win it,’ Kate concludes.
 

top of page

We fight Pitshill path changes
12 September 2006

View which will be lost if the path is moved.    Photo:  Richard Evans

We have objected to path changes at Pitshill, a Georgian mansion at Tillington near Petworth in West Sussex. Chichester District Council has published official orders to reorganise the paths on the estate⁽¹⁾.

Says our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook: ‘The existing footpaths and bridleways across the estate are to be shoved around the edge, so that walkers and riders can no longer enjoy the best views of the house in its setting. The landowner, the Honourable Charles Pearson, half brother to Lord Cowdray, refuses to renovate the mansion until the paths are moved.  Of course that is ridiculous. The paths are no threat to his privacy—the house is well fortified behind a wall and a ha-ha. Mr Pearson is a local person and he bought the house, nearly ten years ago, knowing the paths were there. If he didn’t want the paths there, he shouldn’t have bought the house.

 

‘We have submitted an objection to the path changes and will argue, at a public inquiry if necessary, that they should not be altered. There is no public benefit in the proposals and we do not see why the existing routes should be sacrificed to suit the landowner,’ Kate argues.

‘We are delighted that West Sussex County Council, as highway authority, has also objected to the plans. This will carry a great deal of weight,’ she concludes.


⁽¹⁾ Chichester District Council consulted on the proposed path changes in 2005 and there were many objections, including from West Sussex County Council. Now it has published the official orders, to which anyone can object before 8 September. As there will be objections the orders, if the council wishes to persist with them it must refer them to the Planning Inspectorate who will appoint an inspector to determine them, probably by a public inquiry.


The photograph on the right shows one of the alternative routes, the proposed bridleway which has been carved through the woods, and which is already available to the public on foot by right anyway.     Photo:  Richard Evans
 

top of page

Fencing rejected on Swansea common
1 September 2006

The historic Mynydd Lliw Common, at Grovesend north-west of Swansea, will not be festooned with fencing.  The West Glamorgan Commoners’ Association had applied to the National Assembly for Wales for consent to erect over five kilometres of fencing on the 94-hectare common, under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The society, along with the City and County of Swansea, the Grovesend and Waungron Community Council, and a number of individuals, objected.

Says Kate Ashbrook, our general secretary: ‘We are delighted that the National Assembly for Wales has rejected the application. There is a right for the public to walk and ride over the whole common and it is much enjoyed by the public for recreation.  Mr Steve Jones, in his decision letter on behalf of the assembly, said that, notwithstanding the proposed provision of gates and stiles, the fencing “would give the perception that the public were excluded from the land and that the land behind the fencing was private land”. He also considered the fencing would “give the impression not only of enclosing the land but also reducing its openness and accessibility”.

‘The assembly has to be satisfied that the proposed works on the common are “of benefit to the neighbourhood”. The applicant claimed that the fencing would benefit the neighbourhood because it would prevent animals from straying from the common. However, Mr Jones considered that the applicants did not produce evidence that straying occurred so frequently as to warrant the fencing,’ Kate explains.

‘Some of the fencing had already been erected unlawfully, before consent was even sought. Swansea Council has set an excellent example by pursuing its removal, but the matter could not be resolved until the result of this application was known.  We hope that Swansea Council will now be able to move swiftly to ensure the common is freed from its unlawful fencing,’ Kate declares. ‘It has our full support in doing so.’
 

top of page

Odell bridleway no threat to security
17 August 2006

We have helped to save Odell bridleway 33, north-west of Bedford in Bedfordshire, from being moved.  The society, along with the Bedfordshire Rights of Way Association, the Ramblers’ Association and the East Herts Footpath Society, appeared as an objector at a hearing on 20 July into the plan to move the path. The inspector, Adrian I’Anson, ruled that the path should not be moved.

Says Kate Ashbrook, our general secretary: ‘We are delighted that the path is to stay put. Bedfordshire County Council claimed that the path should be moved out of the yard of Grange Farm, Odell, which is owned by Mr Peter Sissins, because it posed a threat to his security.  Mr Sissins said that he had suffered a recent theft from his farm buildings of equipment to the value of £2,000. Mr Mike Clarke, who represented the society at the hearing, argued that the presence of legitimate members of the public using the bridleway, which is part of a circular walk, would deter any burglars.

‘We are delighted that the inspector concluded from the evidence that the burglars did not use the bridleway. He said: “I am not convinced that the existence of the bridleway through the farmyard has given opportunities for burglary in the past or is likely to do so in the future. On the contrary, I accept the argument of the objectors to the effect that the right of way is more likely to be a deterrent to prospective burglars”.’

Kate continues: ‘Mr Sissins also claimed that walkers and riders conflicted with agricultural activities in the farmyard, but the inspector rejected that argument too, since the movements of agricultural vehicles in the farmyard were “minimal”. This means that an essential test for this diversion, that it was in the interests of the owner, has not been satisfied. So the inspector did not need to consider the relative merits of the new route—which we had argued was inferior in any case. This is an excellent result,’ Kate declares.

Adds Mike Clarke: ‘Now that we know the bridleway is not to be moved, I have called on Bedfordshire County Council to ensure that the sections of fencing which are blocking the bridleway at Grange Farm are removed, since it is illegal to block a public path. I have asked the council to let me know when this will be done.

‘It’s a great pity that Bedfordshire County Council wasted public money on promoting and processing the path diversion instead of carrying out its legal duty to reopen the blocked route,’ says Mike.
 

top of page

Somerset slated for landowner bias
26 July 2006

Somerset County Council has received severe criticism from the society on its draft rights of way improvement plan.

Says Christopher Watson, our local representative for Taunton Deane Borough: ‘Somerset County Council is pandering to landowners and failing to uphold the interests of the public who have a right to use and enjoy the public paths, which are highways in law.  The council proposes putting its public paths in four categories, and to prioritise maintenance and removal of obstructions according the category to which a path is assigned. But it has a legal duty to maintain all paths and to keep them all free from obstructions.  It will also establish an inspection regime based on the categories and will only give “enhanced signage and waymarking” on promoted routes. Yet it has a duty to ensure that all paths are signed where they leave metalled roads, and waymarked to enable people to find their way,’ Chris argues.

‘According to the council the categories are, in descending order of importance, (1) national and regional trails, (2) strategic links, (3) local routes and (4) other paths. The group “other paths” contains “paths with low value to the network”. But who decides this?   If paths have been illegally blocked or cropped for years they are likely not to be used much and are in danger of being assigned to group four, where they will continue to be neglected.’

Adds John Sims, the Open Spaces Society’s West Somerset representative: ‘Furthermore, the council says that it will “consider rationalisation of surrounding rights of way where appropriate, when diversions result in an addition of length/improvement to the network”. This is an outrageous suggestion: the council will allow our public paths to be shifted around, to suit landowners and occupiers. This policy will lead the council into all sorts of negotiations with landowners, which are extremely time-consuming and often contrary to the public interest.

‘The council has limited resources: it confesses to being the worst-performing of the shire counties on public paths in 2002/3 with only one third of its paths easy to use⁽¹⁾. It should be concentrating purely on getting all paths opened up and its official map of rights of way up to date—which are legal duties—not getting drawn into altering the routes of paths—which are a mere power.

‘We therefore deplore this so-called rights of way improvement plan and urge the council to rewrite it,’ says John.


⁽¹⁾. This figure was produced following a survey by the county council of five per cent of its paths in 2002/3, as required by Best Value Performance Indicator 178.
 

top of page

We oppose development on Kent cliff
26 July 2006

We have submitted a strong objection to an application for a three-storey dwelling on the cliff top at Pegwell near Ramsgate in Kent.

Says Kate Ashbrook, our general secretary: ‘Last year we successfully backed the Pegwell and District Association in opposing plans by a developer to erect two dwellings with garages at Cliff Cottage, close to the coastal path and the cliff edge. The plan was thrown out by Thanet District Council and then by a planning inspector on appeal.  We are dismayed that a further application has been submitted which is even worse. Converting the old Cliff Cottage into a three-storey building will be totally out of keeping with the beautiful, open landscape.’

Kate continues: ‘Such a development will destroy people’s enjoyment of this lovely stretch of coastal path. It’s an important area for quiet recreation and especially popular with birdwatchers.  Furthermore, if this is allowed, it will open the floodgates to further development here.  We have called on Thanet District Council to reject the application,’ Kate concludes.
 

top of page

Outrage at hilltop mast
21 July 2006

We have expressed outrage that a 60-metre high anemometer mast is to be erected on the summit of Crook Hill, common land north of Rochdale.  Coronation Power Ltd has received consent from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925, to erect the mast on common land. With the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Wardle Society we opposed the plan.

Says Kate Ashbrook, our general secretary: ‘This tall mast will be visible for miles around. It will have an adverse impact on this wild, awe-inspiring South Pennine landscape. Furthermore, the public has the right to walk and ride over the whole common. The structures will destroy people’s enjoyment of this countryside, and may well frighten horses, putting them and their riders at risk.

‘We are deeply disappointed that the Secretary of State considered that the mast would ‘be virtually invisible from a distance’ and that it would not significantly impede people exercising their right of access to the common. We strongly disagree,’ says Kate.
 

top of page

Henley Festival blocks Thames towpath
11 July 2006

‘The Henley Festival appears to have blocked the Thames towpath, a popular national trail, without lawful authority.’  So declared the Open Spaces Society’s local activist, David Parry, after visiting the site on 3 and 4 July.

‘The festival has consent to close the path during the performances, starting at 17.45 pm on Wednesday 5 July. It does not have consent to close the path before that.  Indeed, earlier this year, it did apply to close the route for an unprecedented seven days but it withdrew that application after receiving a barrage of objections. Now, it has pigheadedly decided to close the path anyway, and is trying to get away with it.

‘There is a wire fence across the route and walkers are required to deviate from the river and around the back of the festival enclosures,’ David explains.  ‘This is unpleasant and annoying for the many walkers of this prestigious, long-distance path, which is especially enjoyed by those with disabilities because it is flat and smooth.

David Parry & Kate Ashbrook view blocked towpath Photo:  Henley Standard

‘We have called on Wokingham District Council, the highway authority, to investigate the matter and to require the festival to reopen the route until the official closure starts at 17.45 pm on Wednesday.  The festival is putting its own commercial interest before the much wider public interest. This route is immensely popular.

‘Before 1998 the festival did not need to close the path at all. That shows that it can operate perfectly well with the path remaining open. It is just being lazy, and greedy.  It claims to be an international event, but it admits that over two-thirds of the attendees (65 per cent) come from the local area. Indeed, it is likely that those walking the Thames path come from much further afield.

‘It’s time the Festival showed more humility and respected long-established public rights to use and enjoy the footpath,’ David concludes.

Links to other related news stories - 31 March 2006, 30 March 2006
 

top of page

Call for Wetley Moor action plan
28 June 2006

We have sharply criticised the draft management plan for Wetley Moor Common, between Leek and Stoke-on-Trent, on the Staffordshire-Stoke border. The public is being consulted on the plan.

Says our spokesman, Edgar Powell: ‘The Open Spaces Society has long criticised the Wetley Moor Joint Committee, which manages the common on behalf of the landowners, Staffordshire Moorlands District Council and Stoke-on-Trent City Council, for condoning the unlawful fencing on the 304-acre common, and for issuing agricultural tenancies, licences and leases there.   Now, as a result, we find that the management plan only covers about 87 per cent of the common which remains in the committee’s control.

‘The latest plan seeks to endorse the unlawful enclosures on the common.  The extent of the unlawful fencing first became apparent in Staffordshire Moorlands District Council’s management study of the common in 1980. This was further highlighted by a public inquiry into an application for fencing in 2003. The application was rightly rejected, following steadfast opposition from the Open Spaces Society and others,’ Edgar explains.

‘We have called on the Joint Committee many times to remove the unlawful fencing, but it continues to ignore us.  The public has the right to walk over the whole area, but is unable to do so because it is festooned with fencing.  Since the management plan runs to 2012, we consider it should set out a plan of action to restore all the unlawful enclosed plots to the common, and thus to the administration of the Joint Committee, by removing all the unlawful fencing,’ Edgar continues.  ‘It’s time the Joint Committee and its authorities took their responsibilities seriously and restored this much-abused common to the people,’ he declares.
 

top of page

Victory at Haytor, Dartmoor
28 June 2006

Thanks to the society, the Dartmoor National Park Authority is recommending to its members that the new information centre at Haytor should not be sited on common land.

In May the society objected to the authority’s plan to erect a permanent information-centre and toilet block on the common, which is owned by the authority. The Dartmoor Preservation Association also expressed concern. In the light of the objections, the authority agreed to reconsider the matter.  In a paper to the park authority’s meeting on Friday (30 June) Suzanne Goodfellow, the Director of Park Management, recommends the members to agree to site the centre and toilets on land behind the existing car-park, ie off the common, and to demolish the existing toilets, remove the portakabin information-centre, and restore the site to common land.

Says Kate Ashbrook, the Open Spaces Society’s general secretary: ‘We strongly opposed this building on common land. We considered it would interfere with the landscape setting of the iconic Haytor Rocks, and with people’s enjoyment of the area.  Development on common land requires the Secretary of State for Environment’s consent, as well as planning permission. We would have opposed this, which would have resulted in a considerable delay.  But, most important, the authority should be exemplary in all its activities. It would have set a bad example if it had built on the common, especially as the authority itself owns the land. Now it can demonstrate best practice, by putting the buildings unobtrusively in the woodland behind, and restoring the common to its unspoilt state. Even if this does cost a bit more, it is worth it,’ Kate argues.

‘We are delighted that the authority’s officers have reconsidered the matter and are now recommending this solution. We urge the members to agree to this on Friday.’
 

top of page

Castle Cove Path, Dartmouth
28 June 2006

The long-closed footpath to Castle Cove, a beauty spot below Dartmouth Castle in Devon, has been partially reopened. This will be celebrated at events on Thursday 22 June and Friday 23 June.

The Open Spaces Society played a key role in the formation of the local action-group, the Castle Cove Campaign, at a public meeting in May 2004. With the group, the society lobbied Devon County Council (the highway authority), and South Hams District Council (the landowner) to devote the necessary funds to reopen this important, historic route.

Says Kate Ashbrook, the society’s general secretary: ‘We were delighted when, as a result of all our efforts, the county council agreed to spend £120,000 on steps, a ramp and rock stabilisation, to enable the public to visit the beach. It has now reinstated half the route, to a high standard. But more work is needed so that people can again enjoy the Victorian bathing-platform, as it was enjoyed a century ago. The council has only done half the job, and visitors to the platform can be cut off by the tide. It would not take much more work to get it open.

‘The council claims that the route to the platform is not a public right of way and so it need not reinstate it—but it has been used for at least a hundred years, and there is clear evidence of this. Local people have submitted a claim that it should be shown on the official map of public rights of way.  It has taken far too long to get even the first half of the path reinstated—it has been closed for seven years following landslips. The local authorities should have acted sooner instead of constantly passing the buck,’ Kate argues. ‘It is invaluable to have the backing of Totnes MP Anthony Steen who fought tirelessly for the rights of the public to enjoy this beauty spot. At one point, he even offered to buy the cove and restore it for the people.

‘We are pleased to have played a part in helping local people with their campaign, in lobbying councillors and at last getting a result.  But, while we celebrate progress so far, we shall continue to campaign for the whole route to be reopened and shown on the official map of public paths,’ Kate concludes.

(Previous Local News Story - 30 March 2005)

top of page

Mablethorpe footpath rescue
28 June 2006

Lincolnshire County Council has been refused permission to move an illegally-blocked footpath at Trusthorpe, south of Mablethorpe, on the Lincolnshire coast (Mablethorpe and Sutton public footpath number 317).

Says our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook: ‘Our Lincolnshire representative, the late Brett Collier, together with the Lincolnshire Fieldpaths Association (LFA), opposed the plan when the council made the official order to move the path in 2004. Tragically, Brett died in March 2005 but Chris Padley, secretary of the LFA, fought on. In early June we were delighted to learn that the Planning Inspectorate had rejected the proposal.

‘We had argued that the path was illegally obstructed by the gardens of properties on The Meadows and Parkinson’s Way. When these were created, the footpath (which runs roughly north-south across the site) was ignored.

‘A footpath is a public highway in law, just like any road. Lincolnshire County Council has a legal duty to keep paths clear of obstruction but, in this case, it tried to evade its duty by moving the path not the obstructions,’ Kate argues.  ‘If the illegal obstructions were removed, the existing route would be a pleasant, direct way. The proposed alternative route is much less direct, with right-angle bends which severely reduce the sightlines of users. This can make people feel unsafe, particularly as the path has high fencing on either side. The inspector, Mr Martin Elliott, agreed with this and considered that the council should remove the obstructions. He therefore rejected the plan,’ says Kate.

‘This is an important victory for the society and our great, lamented footpath defender, Brett Collier; and for the LFA who fight doggedly for our public paths. This path at Trusthorpe is a valuable route for the public.  The county council must now exercise its legal duty to reopen the blocked path. We have called on it to do so,’ Kate declares
 

top of page

Herefordshire common to be fenced
28 June 2006

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has allowed 2 ½ miles of fencing to be erected on Bearswood Common, near Cradley in Herefordshire. The society had objected to the application from Mr Ron Cottam, the owner of the common, to erect 1 ½ miles of deer fencing and 1 mile of sheep fencing around the 12-hectare common. Mr Cottam had argued that it was necessary to fence the common and to graze deer there, in order to maintain suitable vegetation for the rare high brown fritillary butterfly.

Says Kate Ashbrook, our general secretary: ‘We objected because we did not consider the case for fencing the common had been justified. Mr Cottam gave no indication that he had tested other ways of managing the common in the interests of the butterfly. We felt that the interests of the public had not been given due weight. People have the right to walk over every square inch of this common, under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The fencing will impair that right and, even with gates and stiles, it will be a psychological as well as a physical barrier.  Deer fencing is tall and unsightly, so it will also be a blot on the landscape.

‘We are sorry that Mr Cottam did not consult us before he submitted his application. If he had done so we could have suggested how to amend it to ameliorate our concerns. At the very least, we would have wanted the fencing to be for a limited period so as to test whether it was having the desired effect,’ Kate concludes.
 

top of page

Cambrian catastrophe
12 June 2006

Comin Coch Common.    Photo: John Wilde

We have joined the band of objectors to policies in Powys County Council’s unitary development plan (UDP) deposit draft, which could result in parts of mid Wales being quarried for stone.

This area of 370 hectares (914 acres) around Cribarth quarry, four miles north-west of Builth Wells, is of immense natural beauty, yet it has no landscape designation. It would have been included in a Cambrian Mountains National Park in the 1970s if that designation had been confirmed. Indeed, the newly-formed Cambrian Mountains Society http://www.cambrian-mountains.co.uk is now campaigning for the region to be designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty. Comin Coch Common, which has rights of access, is also threatened.

The Welsh Assembly Government has directed planning authorities to identify areas of mineral resources, so as to protect them for future needs. Powys councillors agreed that the mineral resources adjoining Cribarth Quarry, four miles north-west of Builth Wells, should not be ‘safeguarded’ and that the policies should be removed from its UDP. This sets the council on a collision course with the assembly, and the issue is to be fought at a public inquiry in May 2006.

Powys County Council has a landbank of stone to last 40 years—far longer than the lifetime of the UDP. Moreover the authority has proposed this area for tourism growth, which is incompatible with its use for quarrying. With the National Trust, Campaign for the Protection for Rural Wales, Ramblers’ Association, Brecknock Wildlife Trust and Woodland Trust, we shall argue that the area should be freed of its quarrying threat.
 

top of page

Fencing cannot stop public recreation
12 June 2006

We have written to the Beverley Race Company Ltd and the Beverley Pasture Masters to remind them that the public will continue to have a right to walk and ride over the whole of Westwood and Hurn Common, despite a decision by Defra to allow the race company to erect fencing there.   The race company applied to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for consent to erect 300 metres of stock fencing on part of the common to extend the racecourse and keep out stock.

Says Kate Ashbrook, our general secretary: ‘We objected to this application because the public has a legal right to walk and ride over this whole area. The Pasture Masters are not permitted to debar or restrict the public from any part of the common, and therefore, even if the fencing is erected, the public must be allowed free access there for recreation and enjoyment.

‘In its decision letter, the Department for Environment has reminded the race company that the consent for fencing does not override the public’s right of access and we have written to the race company to reinforce this.

‘We are deeply disturbed that Defra has allowed this application for fencing, because it will deter the public from enjoying their right to wander over the common and will be an eyesore. However it is important that people should recognise that they still have the right to walk and ride there and that they should continue to do so,’ Kate concludes.
 

top of page

Unauthorised fencing of common land
9 June 2006

Fencing has been erected on registered common land, at Aylesbeare in East Devon, without the consent of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Says our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook: ‘Any fencing on common land requires the Secretary of State’s consent, otherwise it may be unlawful. The fencing on the common next to Oak Road, Aylesbeare, has no such consent. In deciding whether to grant consent, the environment secretary must be satisfied that the fencing is “of benefit to the neighbourhood”. It is hard to see how he can be satisfied of this here, since the fencing appears to be purely to the benefit of adjoining property holders.  We understand that the public has the right to walk and ride over this common. Clearly the fencing will impede the exercise of these rights,’ Kate declares.

‘Too often fencing is erected on common land without permission being sought. We are pleased that in the Commons Bill, which is currently going through parliament, the government proposes to give the public a power to take action against unlawful works.   However, that bill does not go far enough. We want local authorities to have a duty to take such action, so that here Devon County Council would have been required to do something.

‘We understand that the owner of the adjoining property is proposing to seek retrospective consent for the fencing from the environment secretary. We trust such consent will not be granted and that the fencing will be removed, to restore the common to its former attractive state,’ Kate concludes.

top of page

Deplorable fencing of Norfolk Common
9 June 2006

The society has deplored the decision of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to allow permanent fencing to be erected on West Rudham Common, near King’s Lynn in Norfolk.  We objected to the application from Mr J Ringer, a local farmer, to erect post–and-wire fencing around three areas of common land. The fencing totals over 5,000 metres, or three miles.

Says Ian Witham, our local representative in North Norfolk: ‘We objected to the fencing because it will impair the landscape of this lovely common and conflict with its open character.  It will have an adverse effect on public enjoyment of the land. People have the right to walk over the whole common, under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and fencing will prevent them from doing so.

‘Although there will be stiles and gates, people should be able to enter and leave the common at any point. In any case, fencing is a psychological as well as a physical barrier,’ Ian argues.  ‘Walkers on the public footpath which runs alongside the common will now be separated from the common, which will reduce their enjoyment too.

‘The purpose of the fencing is to allow the land to be grazed. We offered a compromise whereby the fencing would be for a limited period, with a review at the end of that time to see if it was still necessary. Unfortunately our offer was rejected,’ he concludes.

top of page

Beckley path saved
9 June 2006

Plans to stop up a stretch of highway in Beckley, East Sussex, have been abandoned.  Together with Beckley Parish Council and many local people, the society had objected to the proposals from Central and Provincial Developments to stop up the highway between King’s Bank Lane and Main Street, in order to erect houses on the site occupied by the former Royal Oak public house⁽¹⁾.

The highway had existed since at least 1787 but was only added to the official map in 2005, after Beckley Parish Council submitted a claim for it and objections by the landowner were overruled. The highway is in fact a triangle of grassy land in front of the old pub.

Says Kate Ashbrook, our general secretary: ‘We are delighted that the developers withdrew their plans to stop up the route when they discovered that the resulting new traffic regime would be dangerous.  People have enjoyed this patch of land, on foot and horseback and in horse-drawn vehicles, for centuries. In our objection we argued that it was of immense historical, cultural and local importance, and that the plans were contrary to the public interest.  This is a great victory for the people of Beckley and we celebrate with them,’ Kate declares.

Adds local resident Bernard Baverstock: ‘There is a huge body of opinion in the village that it would be wrong to close this route, which has been used by villagers for over 200 years, merely to make a modern junction and housing development.   Many established villagers have happy memories of meeting and playing on this area at the centre of the village, from their schooldays onwards.

‘We are delighted that it has been saved and are grateful that the Open Spaces Society felt able to join us in objecting.’


⁽¹⁾. Central and Provincial Developments applied to the Government Office for the South East to stop up the highway (a byway open to all traffic), under section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on the grounds that it needed to stop up the route in order to implement the planning permission, granted in September 2004, to replace the public house with seven houses and garages, with parking and associated works. The developers notified the parish council in May 2006 that they were withdrawing their application.

top of page

We deplore decision to fence Wolvercote Green
9 June 2006

We are disappointed that fencing around Wolvercote Green, in north Oxford has been given the go-ahead. The Secretary of State for Environment has granted consent to the Wolvercote Commoners’ Committee for 570 metres of stockproof fencing on 2.4 hectares of the common⁽¹⁾.

Says Nicola Hodgson, our case officer: ‘We are sorry that the open and unenclosed character of the common will be spoilt by permanent fencing. There is a right to walk and ride horses on the whole of the common⁽²⁾ , yet access to the land will be restricted. Although the applicants will provide gates, people should be able to enter the common at any point,’ Nicola argues. ‘We understand the need to maintain the heathland qualities of the site, and that the commoners’ committee wishes to reintroduce grazing here. However we believe that this can be achieved by means other than fencing.

‘Regrettably, the society was not consulted by the Commoners’ Committee before it submitted the application, and so we have not been able to explore the alternatives, such as using cattle grids or temporary fencing for the ten week grazing period,’ says Nicola.  ‘It is unfortunate that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [Defra] determined the application without holding a public inquiry where these issues could have been examined.

‘The society, along with English Nature, the Countryside Agency, Defra and the National Trust, has now produced advice on how to manage commons in the interests of all. Their document, A Common Purpose was published in September 2005. This recommends wide consultation and exploration of all the alternatives to managing a common, before opting for a particular solution.’

Nicola continues: ‘At least the consent is only granted for ten years, after which the effectiveness of the fencing will be reviewed. We hope that, by then, we shall have developed ways of managing commons which avoid the use of ugly fencing.’


^(1). Under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925, any building, fences or other works on common land require the consent of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Open Spaces Society, as the leading voluntary society concerned with the protection and management of common land, is always consulted on these applications. Wolvercote Green is managed by Wolvercote Commoners’ Committee.

⁽²⁾. Common land is (a) land subject to the rights of others (usually owners nearby properties), to graze animals, collect wood and turf, etc, or (b) waste land of the manor with no rights. Under section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925, members of the public have rights to walk and ride on Wolvercote Green.

top of page

Dismay at land swap for wind turbines
31 May 2006 top of page

We are dismayed that the former rural affairs minister Jim Knight has agreed to a common-land swap at Scout Moor near Rochdale in Lancashire to enable Scout Moor Wind Farm Limited to build 26 wind turbines there.

Says Nicola Hodgson, our case officer: ‘We opposed applications by the landowners, United Utilities Water plc, Mr J J Dearden and Peel Investment (North) Ltd, to remove the common-land status from land at Scout Moor and to create an equivalent area of common elsewhere. We considered that the proposals would adversely effect walkers and riders, who have the right to enjoy the existing common land. The exchanges would not compensate for the more extensive loss of amenity caused to the remaining common land on the site.

‘The effect of this decision will be comprehensively to alter the landscape character of the well- used and highly-valued moorland plateaux at Scout and Knowl Moors. The extensive views of an uninterrupted moorland skyline will be replaced by ones punctuated by turbines. The character change will be disastrous,’ argues Nicola.

‘There were 15 formal objections to the proposals including Lancashire County Council and Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council. These were considered by an inspector, Mr Keith Durrant, at a public inquiry in November and December 2004 and March 2005. The inspector recommended that the exchange be allowed, and the minister agreed. This means that the land can be used to construct 26 wind turbines, a substation, associated buildings and tracks.

‘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. The inspector and minister also concluded that the exchange was “just and reasonable”. We don’t agree. The public will be hugely disadvantaged by this development on common land.

‘The government is currently promoting a Commons Bill in Parliament. It 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 Nicola.

‘If the law now required exchange land to be equally advantageous to the public, we might have saved the common at Scout Moor from devastation by wind turbines,’ she concludes.

top of page

We fight land swap on West Sussex common
10 May 2006  top of page

We are fighting plans to swap land on Copthorne Common, a vital green lung in the village of Copthorne, near Worth in West Sussex. The landowner, Copthorne Golf Club, has applied to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for consent to exchange 20 acres of easily accessible common land with inaccessible, inferior land, on the other side of the busy A264.

Says Nicola Hodgson, our case officer: ‘We are dismayed that this lovely common, with its historic heritage, high amenity value and easy access, is threatened by this land swap and will become vulnerable to development. ‘The golf club hopes to sell the piece of released land for development, in order to fund the relocation of its facilities to the south of the A264. The planned exchange will restrict people’s right to walk here⁽¹⁾ and will damage the character and amenity value of the village. Copthorne Village Association and Copthorne Village Millennium Group have also opposed the application. A public local inquiry is to be held,’ Nicola explains.

‘Unfortunately the law on exchange land favours the applicant, who merely has to prove that the exchange land is beneficial to the owner(s) of the respective lands and that the terms are “just and reasonable”⁽²⁾. In this case Copthorne Golf Club owns both areas of land, and will therefore argue that it is beneficial to the owner.

‘The government is currently promoting a Commons Bill in Parliament. It proposes amendments to the law on exchange of common land. However, these do not go far enough and we are 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 compulsory purchased, and it should be the same test for voluntary exchanges,’ says Nicola.

‘We have called on the Environment Secretary to reject this damaging application,’ Nicola concludes.

⁽¹⁾. Common land is (a) land subject to the rights of others (usually owners of nearby properties), to graze animals, collect wood and turf, etc, or (b) waste land of the manor with no rights.

Under section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925, members of the public have rights to walk and ride on Copthorne Common.

^(2). 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 has decided in similar applications that she should also consider the effect of the proposals on third parties, including members of the public.

top of page

Victory on Dorset common
5 May 2006  top of page

Walkers using the new stile

A new stile has been erected in fencing on Netmead Common, west of Child Okeford, near Blandford in Dorset. Last year the society called on Dorset County Council to restore freedom of access to this tranquil spot.

Says our chairman, Rodney Legg: ‘The public has had a new legal right to walk on this common, under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, for over a year. But people were prevented from enjoying that right by a barbed-wire fence which bisected the common.  That meant that anybody wanting to cross from one side of the meadow to the other without breaking through the fence had to make a round trip of two miles via Child Okeford village,’ Rodney declares.

‘So we wrote to Dorset County Council, because not only was the fence an impediment to free access, but it was an unlawful work on the common. The result of our efforts is a brand-new stile in the fence, restoring public access across the common. We are grateful to the council for taking this action.  Ideally, of course, the fence should have been removed but, as it had been there for 50 years, we could not insist on this.

‘Netmead Common is the only riverside common in the Blackmore Vale. It has extensive views across to the hills, and is important for its wildlife and as a lovely place to walk. And now everyone can enjoy it, thanks to the Open Spaces Society and Dorset County Council,’ says Rodney.

top of page

We deplore development on Dartmoor common
8 May 2006   top of page

We are deeply concerned about plans by the Dartmoor National Park Authority to site a permanent information-centre on common land which it owns at Haytor. The authority’s members will be asked to approve the business case for this at their meeting on Friday [5 May].

Says Kate Ashbrook, our general secretary: ‘The authority would be setting a bad example if it were to go ahead with a permanent building on common land. In any case, it will need the consent of the Secretary of State for Environment for works on common land, which we trust would not be given.  Common land is an extremely precious resource, not just for the commoners but also the public who have a legal right to walk and ride here. When common land occurs in a national park it is particularly special,’ Kate continues.  ‘We believe that the building will interfere with the beautiful landscape and with people’s enjoyment of this popular area, especially the view from the iconic Haytor rocks.

‘The national park authority purchased the land behind the existing portacabin in order to place the buildings and car park out of sight and off the common. Now it doesn’t want to go ahead with this on grounds of cost. While we sympathise with the authority’s financial predicament, and have lobbied for more money to be given to the national parks, we do not consider finance to be a sufficient reason for siting a permanent information-centre and toilets on common land,’ argues Kate.  ‘Clearly the portacabin needs replacing, it’s just a question of where the new building goes.

‘We have written to the authority’s chairman, asking members to reconsider the matter in order to achieve a truly sustainable and exemplary solution here,’ Kate declares.

top of page

London's special square saved from commercial abuse
13 April 2006   top of page

We are delighted that a House of Lords select committee has rejected plans by Camden Borough Council to use Lincoln’s Inn Fields for private events.

The society, with a number of other distinguished bodies⁽¹⁾, had petitioned against the London Local Authorities Bill and it gave evidence before the Lords’ committee against this provision [clause 112].

Says David Robbins, the society’s parliamentary agent: ‘Camden council wanted carte blanche to use this lovely, peaceful open space for private events, in marquees and even more substantial temporary structures, to raise money to maintain the land. Such events have been carried out illegally in the past, creating huge disturbance and disruption to all the users of the square.

‘The select committee decided that the case for this had not been made. In its report it said: “The committee strongly advises the users and residents of Lincoln’s Inn Fields to form a consultative body and engage in dialogue with the London Borough of Camden as to how the fields should be maintained and funded in future. The committee concluded that clause 112 should not proceed.”’

David Robbins continues: ‘Once set up, this body will keep a close eye on all future proposals emerging from Camden so that the historical protection of this much-used open space is not breached. Indeed, one of our society’s founders, Sir Robert Hunter, was closely involved in the instigation of the main statute protecting Lincoln’s Inn Field in 1894.  Lincoln’s Inn Field is a truly community space where dog walkers and other residents have a chance to talk to one another and children can kick a ball about.

‘The select committee visited the fields and were entertained by a group which happened to be doing its morning Tai Chi session. For people who live in an urban flat without a garden this space is both a lung and a lifeline.

‘We are pleased to have helped save this space from abuse, and we hope it now has a secure and peaceful future,’ David concludes.


⁽¹⁾. The organisations which opposed this plan with the Open Spaces Society were the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn, the Sir John Soane’s Museum, The Royal College of Surgeons, Camden Civic Society, The London Society, Four Essex Court Ltd, Two Garden Court Chambers and the Covent Garden Community Association.

top of page

We fight fencing plan on East Sussex common
12 April 2006   top of page

unlawful bunding on Telscombe Tye Common

We are fighting plans to erect electric fencing on Telscombe Tye Common, which runs down to the coast east of Brighton.  The landowner, Telscombe Town Council, has applied to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for consent to erect fencing along both sides of a track across the common and alongside the ancient Cross Dyke which forms the eastern boundary of the common. This application follows one three and a half years ago to erect fencing around the edge of the common, to which the Open Spaces Society also objected⁽¹⁾. The society is consulted on all such applications for works on common land.

Says Kate Ashbrook, general secretary of the Open Spaces Society: ‘We are dismayed that this lovely common, in the South Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, is threatened with yet more fencing. There have recently been disputes here because public highways on the common have been unlawfully blocked, and bunds were erected without planning permission and without consent from the Secretary of State for Environment for works on common land. East Sussex County Council is taking enforcement action to get the 2,000 tons of unlawful, contaminated bunding removed. The proposed fencing would be yet another blot on the landscape.

‘The planned electric fencing will restrict people’s right to walk here, and will create an ugly paddock. It is also unpleasant for riders who have rights to enjoy the bridleways across the land. This common was given to the people of Brighton, for their quiet enjoyment. The fencing will interfere with that.

‘We have called on the environment secretary to reject this damaging application,’ Kate concludes.

^(1). Common land is (a) land subject to the rights of others (usually owners of nearby properties), to graze animals, collect wood and turf, etc, or (b) waste land of the manor with no rights. Before erecting any building, fence or other work on common land, the applicant must obtain not only any necessary planning permission but also the consent of the Secretary of State for Environment, under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925. In deciding whether to give consent, the environment secretary will take account of ‘the benefit to the neighbourhood’.

 top of page

Public paths could become private preserves
5 April 2006  top of page

A new law took effect on 1 April which allows local authorities to make Gating Orders, converting public paths into private preserves⁽¹⁾.

Says Kate Ashbrook, our general secretary: ‘Local authorities throughout England now have new, sweeping, powers to make Gating Orders. These prevent the public from using a highway, at all or specified times, on grounds of reducing crime or anti-social behaviour.  The authority only has to be satisfied that premises adjacent to the highway are affected by crime or anti-social behaviour, and that the existence of the highway is facilitating these offences. Of course people living next to a public path may be all too ready to make such claims in order for the path to be gated. Then they can enjoy the sole use of something which should be public.

‘When the council makes a Gating Order it must merely “consider” any representations made. It is not required to hold a public inquiry. If it does hold an inquiry there is no requirement for there to be an independent inspector. So the council will be judge and jury in its own case,’ Kate argues.

‘We made submissions to the Home Office on the draft regulations, to lessen their impact and protect the public interest. But the Home office appears to have ignored just about everything we said.  Furthermore, when the legislation was in parliament, ministers indicated that Gating Orders would only apply to urban alleyways which served no useful purpose. But there is no such restriction in the Act or the regulations, so rural paths could be at risk too. How often do we hear the owners of exclusive properties in the countryside claiming that paths near their mansions are the cause of thefts or a risk to their security? It’s usually rubbish of course, but we can expect rural residents to urge councils to make gating orders too,’ predicts Kate.

‘There is no need for this new law. It is only three years ago that new provisions came into force allowing the Secretary of State for Environment to designate crime hotspots, within which paths can be closed or moved on grounds of preventing or reducing crime. These provisions have barely been tested, so the gating proposals are way over the top.

‘We shall ask every local authority in England to notify the Open Spaces Society of any proposed Gating Order, so that we can oppose it unless there is an extremely sound case for it.  We want to deter councils from using this pernicious new device to make public paths into private space—and instead to devote their limited resources to reopening illegally-blocked paths for all of us to enjoy,’ Kate concludes.

^(1). The regulations are the Highways Act 1980 (Gating Orders) (England) Regulations 2006. The law on Gating Orders was added to the Highways Act 1980 by section 2 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. If a Gating Order is made, the route continues to be a public highway, with the public barred from using it at all times or specified times.

top of page

We scupper Salford's path-closure plans
5 April 2006  top of page

We have defeated Salford City Council’s attempt to close 12 sections of public highway in and around Weaste Lane. The council claimed that the paths were facilitating crime in the area and applied to close them. Our society and the Pedestrians’ Association fought the plans at a public inquiry.

Says our Manchester activist, Don Lee: ‘The council, backed by the police’s “Community Beat Officer” claimed it was necessary to close the paths because they were helping people to commit criminal offences. But at the inquiry the council and local people only made vague statements, and produced little evidence that the presence of the paths was the cause of crime, or that the premises adjoining the paths were “affected by high levels of crime” – a necessary test for the proposals to succeed.  The inspector, Mark Yates, threw out Salford’s plans wholesale. Salford has just not met the necessary test to close the paths.

‘The council has squandered a great deal of public money on its fruitless attempt to stop up routes which are used and enjoyed by the public. We hope it has learnt its lesson,’ Don concludes.

top of page

We fight mast on hilltop common
31 March 2006  top of page

We are fighting plans to erect a 60-metre high anemometer mast on the summit of Crook Hill, common land north of Rochdale.  Coronation Power Ltd has received planning permission for the mast but, because it is on common land, the company also needs the consent of the Secretary of State for Environment under section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925. We are consulted on all such applications and have resolutely opposed it.

Our general secretary, Kate Ashbrook, says: ‘This tall mast will be sited on the prominent hilltop of Crook Hill, and will be visible for miles around. It will destroy the integrity of this wild, awe-inspiring South Pennine landscape.  Furthermore, the public has the right to walk and ride over every square inch of this common. A tall mast with guy ropes will destroy people’s enjoyment of this countryside, and may well frighten horses, putting them and their riders at risk.  In any case, there is no point in giving consent for a mast, whose purpose is to assess windspeeds with a view to an application for wind turbines, when wind turbines would be unacceptable here,’ Kate argues. ‘This landscape is far too sensitive to accommodate a wind farm.’

‘The Secretary of State should tell the developers that their plans are an abuse of this special area of common land and people’s quiet enjoyment of it. She should reject this damaging application.’

top of page

Kent school-path closure pursued
31 March 2006  top of page

Kent County Council has made an official order to close a public footpath which runs close to Fulston Manor School and Highsted Grammar School in Sittingbourne, despite strong opposition from our organisation. 

We objected to the plans when it was consulted by Kent County Council last year. Now, with others, we are opposing the order and the case will have to be decided by the Secretary of State for Environment⁽¹⁾.  The schools asked the council to use new legal powers to close the paths on the grounds that it is necessary to do so to protect pupils or staff from violence or harassment.

Says Kate Ashbrook, our general secretary: ‘We are dismayed that Kent County Council apparently ignored our arguments and is set on closing this important public path. The schools have provided lamentably little evidence that the existence of the path is causing any threat to pupils or staff.   Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary. We have figures from Kent Police which show that, when the path was closed for part of 2005, there were more incidents than when it was open. So antisocial activities occur in even greater numbers when there is no path here. This is not surprising. The presence of a path can prevent crime and anti-social activities, because members of the public using it are likely to spot anyone who is up to no good,’ argues Kate.

‘We also consider that the schools should have made much more effort to improve their own security. For instance, why have they not erected the fencing along both sides of the path?  Moreover, this path provides people with a useful, direct route. If it is closed they will have to walk at least twice the distance alongside the busy, unpleasant Highsted, Bell and Brenchley Roads. These roads are likely to become busier, and on Bell Road there have been a number of serious accidents. Why should the walking public be made to suffer?

‘It’s not too late for Kent County Council to change its mind, in the light of the opposition to these plans, and to tell t