Enclosing woodland

[Two Acres]

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.

 

Thats an absolute disgrace and it shouldn't be allowed, surely its not legal? Who is resisting this process?

[openspaceman]

Thats an absolute disgrace and it shouldn't be allowed, surely its not legal? Who is resisting this process?

 

I don't like it but it is legal to fence ones land. I try and appeal where I can but unless you are a representative of one of the statutory bodies that are notified of any changes to the PROW network you don't find out until it's too late. As with all things planning if no objection is made in 4 years it can stay.

 

OSS are about the only people who will do anything but they are cash strapped and more principled than practical.

[Two Acres]

I don't like it but it is legal to fence ones land. I try and appeal where I can but unless you are a representative of one of the statutory bodies that are notified of any changes to the PROW network you don't find out until it's too late. As with all things planning if no objection is made in 4 years it can stay.

 

OSS are about the only people who will do anything but they are cash strapped and more principled than practical.

 

I've just been looking at OSS, never heard of them before today. Think I'll join. Of course its perfectly reasonable to fence land, however doing so in such a way that you deliberately destroy the enjoyment of others is selfish and self-centred. Neither my family or any of the landowners that I'm friendly with would ever even consider such a thing - we're all far more community minded here.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

This is a tricky one.

 

On the one hand, public access to private land seems to be assumed as as some kind of perceived "right" especially after a period of time has passed.

 

On the other, a landowner bears the responsibility under the occupiers liability act and may be subject to unauthorised usage / nuisance / vandalism / theft.

 

Setting aside for the moment the moral / intellectual argument of any mans' right to "own" land, try thinking how you might feel if some unknown / uninvited person decided to set a deck chair in your front garden, put his feet up, crack a tinny and gaze upon your flower bed...

 

Would you welcome that?

 

Would a potential moral indignation be justified?

 

If 'yes', how would that be any different to the owner of a woodland fencing a footpath?

 

Tricky.....

[Welshwoodsman]

This is a tricky one.

 

On the one hand, public access to private land seems to be assumed as as some kind of perceived "right" especially after a period of time has passed.

 

On the other, a landowner bears the responsibility under the occupiers liability act and may be subject to unauthorised usage / nuisance / vandalism / theft.

 

Setting aside for the moment the moral / intellectual argument of any mans' right to "own" land, try thinking how you might feel if some unknown / uninvited person decided to set a deck chair in your front garden, put his feet up, crack a tinny and gaze upon your flower bed...

 

Would you welcome that?

 

Would a potential moral indignation be justified?

 

If 'yes', how would that be any different to the owner of a woodland fencing a footpath?

 

Tricky.....

 

 

Spot on! As a landowner, I strictly follow the 'get off my ... Land' way of doing things.

 

A permissive path is one that a landowner chooses to be available to the public- this can be un-chosen at any time. And driving cars into the wood- the cheek of the people- just driving onto someone else's land.

 

Strikes me, if the public footpaths are unobstructed, then the new owner can crack on- and the public can stick to the footpath, or trespass somewhere else.

Did people walk dogs off leads I wonder, leave dog excrement all over the wood? Take their rubbish home?

 

Its tricky, but if someone has spent their hard earned cash on a woodland of their own- they have a right to enjoy it. If they don't want people walking all over it- that is their right. If the community wanted to buy it, and make it a community woodland- presumably they could have done so.

[Peasgood]

Spot on! As a landowner, I strictly follow the 'get off my ... Land' way of doing things.

 

A permissive path is one that a landowner chooses to be available to the public- this can be un-chosen at any time. And driving cars into the wood- the cheek of the people- just driving onto someone else's land.

 

Strikes me, if the public footpaths are unobstructed, then the new owner can crack on- and the public can stick to the footpath, or trespass somewhere else.

Did people walk dogs off leads I wonder, leave dog excrement all over the wood? Take their rubbish home?

 

Its tricky, but if someone has spent their hard earned cash on a woodland of their own- they have a right to enjoy it. If they don't want people walking all over it- that is their right. If the community wanted to buy it, and make it a community woodland- presumably they could have done so.

That gets a like from me..

An earlier poster used the phrase "community minded". In my fields that means the entire local community has decided that my fields are a convenient place to take their dogs for a crap.

 

I have public footpaths across my land. People are entitled to use them as much as they like, I accept that. People are allowed to use them to exercise their dogs. It isn't what they are there for originally but I guess I have to accept that.

In return do people accept they have to stick to the footpaths and not just wander anywhere they like, do they accept their dogs should be on leads rather than just running everywhere through my crops? Do they buggery!

[Two Acres]

Spot on! As a landowner, I strictly follow the 'get off my ... Land' way of doing things.

 

A permissive path is one that a landowner chooses to be available to the public- this can be un-chosen at any time. And driving cars into the wood- the cheek of the people- just driving onto someone else's land.

 

Strikes me, if the public footpaths are unobstructed, then the new owner can crack on- and the public can stick to the footpath, or trespass somewhere else.

Did people walk dogs off leads I wonder, leave dog excrement all over the wood? Take their rubbish home?

 

Its tricky, but if someone has spent their hard earned cash on a woodland of their own- they have a right to enjoy it. If they don't want people walking all over it- that is their right. If the community wanted to buy it, and make it a community woodland- presumably they could have done so.

 

Its an interesting one. Theres a small 'car park' area thats been used to park for as long as I can remember. To my knowledge theres never been any problem with rubbish or dogs mess (although I personally hate iresponsible dog owners that don't clear up behind their animals, thers always one). I'd always thought that it was a community woodland rather than a private one, its always been treated as such. I guess it was just previously owner by a permissive landowner.

 

I emailed the parish council yesterday and have heard back today. They are aware of the situation and acknowledge that the new owner has a right to fence the land. They tell me that they are working on finding a way to reinstate the general acess that previously existed - we will see what transpires.

[Two Acres]

This is a tricky one.

 

On the one hand, public access to private land seems to be assumed as as some kind of perceived "right" especially after a period of time has passed.

 

On the other, a landowner bears the responsibility under the occupiers liability act and may be subject to unauthorised usage / nuisance / vandalism / theft.

 

Setting aside for the moment the moral / intellectual argument of any mans' right to "own" land, try thinking how you might feel if some unknown / uninvited person decided to set a deck chair in your front garden, put his feet up, crack a tinny and gaze upon your flower bed...

 

Would you welcome that?

 

Would a potential moral indignation be justified?

 

If 'yes', how would that be any different to the owner of a woodland fencing a footpath?

 

Tricky.....

 

It is a tricky one Kevin and your analogy is interesting. To my mind there is a line somewhere between each individual being able to claim a piece of land to call his own (and build a home on) and the enclosure of vast swathes of countryside. I think its important to allow public access to the countryside wherever possible (a right to roam) and I think its important not to erect fences whenever possible. I also think that its essential that the general public acts responsibly (no rubbish, dog mess, trampled crops etc.) It needs to be a two way street. I have to admit that at times my patience has been stretched very thin and the desire to fence off my family land and tell members of the public to 'bugger off' has been strong and very difficult to resist (especially when I found a little cannabis plantation, cheeky gits). For me personally, overall, the desire to allow general access to as many local people as are interested has won out.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

It is a tricky one Kevin and your analogy is interesting. To my mind there is a line somewhere between each individual being able to claim a piece of land to call his own (and build a home on) and the enclosure of vast swathes of countryside. I think its important to allow public access to the countryside wherever possible (a right to roam) and I think its important not to erect fences whenever possible. I also think that its essential that the general public acts responsibly (no rubbish, dog mess, trampled crops etc.) It needs to be a two way street. I have to admit that at times my patience has been stretched very thin and the desire to fence off my family land and tell members of the public to 'bugger off' has been strong and very difficult to resist (especially when I found a little cannabis plantation, cheeky gits). For me personally, overall, the desire to allow general access to as many local people as are interested has won out.

 

 

I can't find myself a clear position on the hypothetical situation.

 

If only everybody lived by the mantra - treat others as you might wish to be treated - then maybe there would be no need for physical, emotional, symbolic "fences."

 

It always seems to be the odd one or two that upset the equilibrium.

 

Hope it works out well for all parties in your scenario. 👍🏻

[Two Acres]

I can't find myself a clear position on the hypothetical situation.

 

If only everybody lived by the mantra - treat others as you might wish to be treated - then maybe there would be no need for physical, emotional, symbolic "fences."

 

It always seems to be the odd one or two that upset the equilibrium.

 

Hope it works out well for all parties in your scenario. 👍🏻

 

Thanks Kevin

 

Its a good hypothetical situation IMO, makes you think. I agree that the less 'fences' between people the better but it does require everyone to act with respect for each other, as you say. Sadly thats not always the case and at times like those, when you get on the wrong end of soem crap, the 'pull up the drawbridge' mentality does kick-in. Personally if I can't access the fenced off woodland then it won't affect me much (I can go play in my own wood) but I would find it sad that my kids wouldn't be able to roam where I was able to as a youngster.