Enclosing woodland

[Two Acres]

Hi all,

 

I noticed today that some woodland in the next village to mine has been enclosed with wire fences. This woodland has been sold within the last year. There are public footpaths that run through the wood - these are still walkable but now have wite fences on either side to prvent any access to the open woodland. There is a gate at the entrance. In living memory this woodland has always been open. Villagers have driven cars in and walked the wood. I'm wondering if enclosing a previously open access wood in this way is legal? What do you all think? How can I raise an objection?

[Welshwoodsman]

If there is a public footpath- then the public has a legal right to walk the footpath, but not to step off it, onto the land on either side. It could be looked at that there are now permissive paths, if people have been walking all over the wood- or there could have been permissive paths that the new owners have now removed. A permissive path can be withdrawn at any time i believe.

[openspaceman]

Hi all,

 

I noticed today that some woodland in the next village to mine has been enclosed with wire fences. This woodland has been sold within the last year. There are public footpaths that run through the wood - these are still walkable but now have wite fences on either side to prvent any access to the open woodland. There is a gate at the entrance. In living memory this woodland has always been open. Villagers have driven cars in and walked the wood. I'm wondering if enclosing a previously open access wood in this way is legal? What do you all think? How can I raise an objection?

 

 

Your best hope would be to look at the definitive statement to see what width is mentioned, I have just lost an appeal where a open field path was fenced off at 2 metres but no width was mentioned. Had it been a new or diverted path it would have been 4.5 metres. I have nothing against a landowner fencing his land for management purposes but I do object to 2 metre fences being erected to the detriment of the public enjoyment of the countryside.

[Two Acres]

If there is a public footpath- then the public has a legal right to walk the footpath, but not to step off it, onto the land on either side. It could be looked at that there are now permissive paths, if people have been walking all over the wood- or there could have been permissive paths that the new owners have now removed. A permissive path can be withdrawn at any time i believe.

 

Yes, people have driven in their cars in the past, then walked pretty much wherever they like in the wood. I don't know the legal situation but I thought that if a permissive path was used for a long period of time then it became a public footpath?

[Two Acres]

Your best hope would be to look at the definitive statement to see what width is mentioned, I have just lost an appeal where a open field path was fenced off at 2 metres but no width was mentioned. Had it been a new or diverted path it would have been 4.5 metres. I have nothing against a landowner fencing his land for management purposes but I do object to 2 metre fences being erected to the detriment of the public enjoyment of the countryside.

 

Thanks Openspaceman, Where would I be able to find the 'definitive statement'?

The paths are very narrow, I would guess 2 metres or less. What used to be an enjoyable walk in open countryside is now like taking a stroll in a prison excersise yard. To my mind its mean-spirited, however I may be wrong - there may be a good reason for it thats not yet apparent.

[treequip]

Surely the woodland is better off without all and sundry tramping all over the biodiversity

[Billy68]

Check with the wrights of way officer at the council

[openspaceman]

Thanks Openspaceman, Where would I be able to find the 'definitive statement'?

The paths are very narrow, I would guess 2 metres or less. What used to be an enjoyable walk in open countryside is now like taking a stroll in a prison excersise yard. To my mind its mean-spirited, however I may be wrong - there may be a good reason for it thats not yet apparent.

 

 

The local highway authority should have definitive maps and statements. The maps aren't much cop because they will have been drawn onto OS 6":1mile and won't show a width, they may well show a lack of a fence.

 

As you say it changes the aspect of a walk and openness is an aesthetic benefit.

 

It may possible that the long term usage has made it a public area but the only way I know of registering this is as a village green but this effectively devalues the land for the landowner's existing use. I agree with treequip and that unnecessary public access hinders management and affects the conservation value, which is why I thought CROW was a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. IMO it would have been better to enhance the existing PROW network rather than give rights across all unimproved grassland. Very few people walk off piste and the ones that do can be very damaging, even on CROW land most people are content to stay on existing farm tracks and again I think this is how it should have been.

 

This may well be just a new owner asserting his rights, a local very rich charity near my home has fenced off common land for grazing yet no cattle have grazed for 6 years but OTOH many people are afraid to walk in fields with cattle, there have been several people trampled to death in recent years so it can suit both sides if done reasonably.

 

Find the local correspondent for the open spaces society and be advised.

 

 

If you look at what the likes of Clarkson or Madonna have done to increase their privacy when they buy an estate with existing rights of way then you will understand this is the tip of an iceberg. Locally Surrey County Council the highway authority will do nothing for the public benefit and always fall in with a landowner which is why on a lot of my walks the footpath is fenced both sides with panels and the width is 3ft, as long as the width is that specified in the definitive statement and the height is less than 2metres nothing will be done (although IMO planning permission should be required for any fence over 1m high if next to a highway a footpath doesn’t count). With Surrey property being an attractive investment and bolthole for foreign moguls who come from a culture of walled compounds we see a lot of this.

 

 

 

As I said in a new development where a path crosses the housing area and is diverted it is generally created with a 4.5 metre width and I think this should also apply when an open field path is fenced, slightly more is barbed wire is used,

 

If you do find grounds to contest what has happened you will need public support and with many people unconcerned about recreation in the countryside apathy will be the problem. I think far less people do recreational walking than 20 years ago aside from honey pots like the lake district. You should aim for at least 20 other objectors and 20 years evidence, if it goes to public inquiry a fair number of them must attend, a petition carries no weight.

[Two Acres]

Thanks for that Openspaceman, very, very interesting. There may well be good reasons for the landowner fencing this wood, however there may not. I had no idea about what you say is going on in Surrey, it sounds appalling. Am I right to think that some landowners have fenced either side of a public footpath with fencing panels so that you don't see the view? If so I think thats a disgrace. Norfolk has always been pretty much open countryside, in my experience. Most of the landowners I now are very generous with access to their land, particularly in respect of allowing local people who live in the villages to walk paths and woods freely and for example, allowing the local fisihng club to fish the river for a peppercorn rent. My wife is from the Lake District and as you say thats even more open. Coming from that background its very shocking for me to see this new approach. I hope that its not the tip of an iceberg, but I shall be keeping an eye on it.

[openspaceman]

. Am I right to think that some landowners have fenced either side of a public footpath with fencing panels so that you don't see the view? .

 

That's what is happening but it's not to spoil a walker's view it's to prevent a walker looking at what's inside the fence. The private individuals' right to privacy is overriding the public's right to an open vista.