UKH

Public access to England's countryside is in a poor state, according to campaigners, thanks to piecemeal legislation, a mess of absurd permitted and no-go areas, and thousands of blocked Rights of Way. 

Read more

This has been glaringly obvious since CRoW came in years ago. There are numerous islands where I could legally be if only I had a helicopter. I've 'trespassed' to get to some of them or exited from them having gotten in via access land. Just one ludicrous example can be seen in Chapel-le-Dale where Raven Scar extends across CRoW and non-CRoW land despite both parts being identical unimproved limestone grazing. One can only surmise that unfair influence was exerted (or cash changed hands) at the time the designations were made originally.

Knowing those who were employed in the registration the cash accusation is most likely unfounded. I think there was a lack of resolve at times maybe and that, coupled with the laborious recording process and inadequate legislation, led to illogicalities.  

I find this focus on the 'islands' a bit odd. Sure it highlights absurdities, and we all want better access to open land. But it seems an odd choice to make it about the access islands thing....

The Vixen Tor "island" at the epicentre of the upcoming protest looks like a 200m patch of field, and yet there's no access to Vixen Tor itself and the way it's being spun that'll hardly get any attention despite being far more worthy.

Similarly the Gillcambon area cited in the bbc article (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68278444) looks to require a whole 20m of trespass to access from a path, with no obvious 'keep out' or 'private property' signs to be seen from the google car.

The way they're pushing it could easily be heard as if they're asking for avenues to be opened up linking the patches because people really really want to roam in that particular spot.

Obviously the way things are is broken and fixing it should be a priority, but the choice to spin it to be about 'islands' doesn't hold up to much common sense scrutiny and seems to me like it could be a bit of a distraction. I'd much rather see the focus stick to getting more land (and especially waterways) included.

To put it another way, if the dispute can be quietened by opening up a 1m wide yellow strip leading to each of these blobs, we won't have gained a whole lot.

Join us for a peaceful demonstration to highlight this issue of access islands at a beautiful, inaccessible crag on Dartmoor!

The once classic 30m Vixen Tor has been inaccessible to walkers and climbers since 2003, but has some brilliant routes and is an iconic formation. 

details here: 

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/trespass-to-the-forbidden-island-registration-...

There's no path you are allowed on anywhere near there. You can't get onto them tracks at all without trespass from the public road, then it's miles of trespass along the tracks hoping you don't get challenged by the landowner or an estate worker. Even if was only 20m of trespass that's no small thing, if there's anyone about you just can't do it.

We shouldn't be excluded from these huge estates (which originated by theft of common land), why are the landowners so precious about it?

There definitely is.

You can, across CRoW land. See images.

No, it isn't. It's metres. That's my point. 

I want to be clear here, I'm really not arguing with you about the principle. I want to see better access. What I don't want to see is a 10ft strip around "Trespass option 1" turned into CRoW land and then the landowners saying "There, you got what you wanted. We're good now, right?". 

Having spoken to the organisers, the focus on access islands is because it's seen as one of the most visible and patently ridiculous consequences of CRoW's many deficiencies, and something that is easily communicable as such to potential supporters of wider access reform.

They have done and will do other trespasses not related to access islands, I think. They're not specifically asking for paths to connect to these areas.

The fact that it's right next to Vixen Tor is a happy coincidence for us climbers who feel that it is another case of an overly complex and perversely incentivising mapping process excluding us in spite of (alleged) illegal improvement of the land to remove it from consideration as access land. Hey - we're all talking about it aren't we?

As a member of the South Devon Right to Roam group this is one of many trespasses that we have done over the last couple of years. These have included small monthly trespasses in the local area highlighting access issues for the community, to the mass trespass we organised on the Duke of Somersets land near Torquay. This won't be the last either. I highly recommend finding or founding your own local right to roam group, and going out together to walk and hang out and have a nice day out.

I've got to ask: Apart from having a "nice day out" has this trespassing actually achieved anything? What are your group's explicit objectives? Education (e.g., what's legal, what's not)? Change in the law (to what?). Getting more permissive access?

Ok thanks. I had the route from Greystoke in the other direction in my mind. Those paths starting at Greystoke Castle used to be open as permissive access, and they were advertised, but the landowner took them away as they are legally allowed to do and that is always the risk with permissive paths.

My concern is it doesn't matter if the trespass is 2 miles or 2 metres. If there is any gap then a jealous landowner can take your access away on a whim.

Yes I don't want to argue at all, I agree it wouldn't be the end of it but I would like to see a 10ft strip around at least one sensible route to get into these access islands. I would see it as a worthwhile gain for now and a step in the right direction.

But that whole are is littered with silly access arrangements and contradictions. The old Penrith Keswick railway line mainly isn't accessible,  except for a few short bits, despite it being a very obvious (harmless) walking route.

I think there are keep out signs on many of the woodland tracks near your map extracts, even though the access land lies beyond? 

Nothing is going to change ref access. Landed power and wealth in this country will see to that.

Yeah, great example. In my head this would be a way more sensible thing to lead with. That's what I'm getting at. Making more joined up routes sounds more attractive to me than getting a single access route opened to a tiny isolated field.

Can't see any from the road on Google but obviously can't say for sure

I share your view of the landed class but… we did make something change in 2000. It’s true that it had taken years of campaigning. That included mass trespasses: I like to imagine that landowners began to think, oh what’s the point if the plebs are just going to wander in anyway?

So it’s unfinished business, and it might still take years, but don’t despair!