Enclosing woodland

[aspenarb]

We were on a contract to fence round a huge lump of MOD common land to keep cattle in as part of a biodiversity program. We installed hundreds of kissing gates, cattle grids and self closing gates for horse riders as well as about 60k of stock fencing. Thats when the fun started , the general public who accessed the land from a certain way would just turn up with the snips and cut their way in because thats the way they had "always" come We must have repaired the fence a hundred times over a period of 2 years , in the end the MOD just coughed up for more gates. Nothing was ever locked, it does make you wonder if it a good idea to let anyone in to start with.

 

We also spend at least two weeks a year with a team running around woodlands with the telehandler placing huge logs across anywhere the green laners my get it.

 

Bob

Edited August 4, 2015 by aspenarb

[openspaceman]

fence round a huge lump of MOD common land to keep cattle in as part of a biodiversity program.

 

It is common land, that is land over which people have rights in common with the landowner.

 

As a result of the law of property act the rights were expanded to include the right for the general public to have free access to the land for air and recreation. Fencing the land diminishes this right and , though the aim for biodiversity is paramount, people have objected to the loss of freedom to roam (NB this never included vehicular rights).

 

In fact many of these commons became SSSIs for insects or herpetological species but the false measure of a good heath was the population of three ground nesting birds. In fact one of these birds does best in thae absence of dog walkers so the backdrop to a firing range was ideal for them and recreating these conditions became the aim of "wildlife" charities, it is but a little step from there to dissuading people to use the heath.Once commoners grazing ceased and military manoeuvring stopped secondary woodland started developing. What the green welly booted brigade didn't appreciate was that commoners maintained the heath in order to graze, not necessarily that grazing maintained the heath, so fencing and clearance was done under massive grants heathland charities received from UK's kickback from common market payments under the euphemism "modulation" a term coined by nulabor to prevent the money going to working farmers which spawned the current conservation industry at the expense of the traditional countryside businesses.

[aspenarb]

Its not like they were denying anyone access to the place, they provided hundreds of access points.

We did some clearance work a few years ago in Alton to divert a public footpath around a woodland rather than through the middle and fenced it off, the new path added about 150mts to the the old route but it was much better being a new track. Again despite all this being done properly through the right channels the fencing was cut on several occasions. To me thats criminal damage. You can also see from other threads on here that the public assume they can use these woodlands as a free tip. Sort of spoils it for others really because it should not cost the land owner to allow public through their land.

 

Bob

[Sleeches]

Whilst I'm all for people enjoying the countryside, a little more respect of private property wouldn't go amiss.

 

We have a small woodland of about 40 acres which came with the house and has a bridlepath on its border, which also runs through our yard. It is mostly used by riders who are generally very pleasant but over the last few years we have had people riding and walking dogs through the woods and someone even set up a tent and campfire.

 

All of the adjoining woodland owners have the same problem - people simply have no respect for others' property and think that as it is a woodland it is somehow "owned" by the wider population. Where the paths cut through the woodland people would just wander into the woods in a way they wouldn't if it was a residential garden. If it were common land then fine, open access is fine, but its not.

 

We haven't fenced in the woodland as it's not a huge issue to us but others have done so. It looks terrible but that's what is takes to keep people to the paths.

 

I wouldn't mind but we're 5 minutes from the Ashdown Forest where there is common land as far as the eye can see. As always its the inconsiderate 1% who give the rest a bad rep.

 

Ironically I was listening to the Levellers on the way to work this morning...

[Two Acres]

Whilst I'm all for people enjoying the countryside, a little more respect of private property wouldn't go amiss.

 

We have a small woodland of about 40 acres which came with the house and has a bridlepath on its border, which also runs through our yard. It is mostly used by riders who are generally very pleasant but over the last few years we have had people riding and walking dogs through the woods and someone even set up a tent and campfire.

 

All of the adjoining woodland owners have the same problem - people simply have no respect for others' property and think that as it is a woodland it is somehow "owned" by the wider population. Where the paths cut through the woodland people would just wander into the woods in a way they wouldn't if it was a residential garden. If it were common land then fine, open access is fine, but its not.

 

We haven't fenced in the woodland as it's not a huge issue to us but others have done so. It looks terrible but that's what is takes to keep people to the paths.

 

I wouldn't mind but we're 5 minutes from the Ashdown Forest where there is common land as far as the eye can see. As always its the inconsiderate 1% who give the rest a bad rep.

 

Ironically I was listening to the Levellers on the way to work this morning...

 

I agree with your point about respect Sleeches. I think that if people abuse access to woodland then that encourages owners to want to fence them and exclude the public. Thats a shame I feel. One of the things that I like to do is take a walk in family my wood and see who else is around. As far as the public are concerned I'm just another walker so I can have an anonymous look, and sometimes chat, interesting experience. Most people take a walk and leave no trace, but there is always the worry about the one percent that don't care. A small minority will abuse open access and potential spoil things for the majority. In terms of keeping to paths the problem, in my view, is probably that human nature is to explore. People want to discover new things and go 'off the beaten track'. Thats just natural, especially for children, but also a difficulty.

[openspaceman]

To me thats criminal damage. You can also see from other threads on here that the public assume they can use these woodlands as a free tip. Sort of spoils it for others really because it should not cost the land owner to allow public through their land.

 

Bob

 

It is criminal damage and there is no way I am advocating a public free for all in private woodlands, I was just trying to point out that a landowner should not unilaterally hinder the enjoyment of public rights. The principal of prescriptive rights, to be able to carry on doing something lawful as has been done over a long period, dates back to Saxon times and forms part of English culture.

 

This is why any landowner wishing to keep his land private but with limited permissive access should lodge a document with the highway authority and renew it periodically.

[TRADITIONAL LOGGERS]

The person who now owns the woodland might want to have some organic free range pigs to clean up the land before allowing the new trees to come up.

[difflock]

"Good fences make for Good neighbours!"

old country saying, apparently

[ben_inthewoods]

Try the Scottish Outdoor Access Code (SOAC) where there is freedom to roam in all woods. Not really a big issue, even in more populated urban/peri urban woodlands. We just live with it.

[Two Acres]

The person who now owns the woodland might want to have some organic free range pigs to clean up the land before allowing the new trees to come up.

 

You're right, there may well be a good reason, as you say. We just need the parish council to find out if thats the case.