OPINION: Why Dartmoor's Byelaws are Being Updated

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

Dartmoor is the only place in England where wild camping is officially permitted, but thanks problems with anti-social camping there are moves to restrict this right in some of the worst affected parts of the moor.

We recently published an opinion piece attacking the proposed changes to the byelaws. Here the Dartmoor National Park Authority make the counter argument explaining the logic for a change.

Read more

4
 tlouth7 27 Sep 2021
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I appreciate the article, and I think it is much to UKC's credit that both sides are given the space to present their views.

That said, I don't see how this article addresses any of the objections to the proposals. Further, it doesn't give any examples of how specific proposed changes will achieve the stated aims.

 Steve Woollard 27 Sep 2021
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

As someone who lives, walks and camps on Dartmoor I think the proposals are very reasonable and the changes are very minor. The reduction in the areas where wild camping is permitted is only about 8% and are areas close to the road which doesn't count as wild camping anyway

4
 Adrian Wade 27 Sep 2021
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

As someone else has said, I think it’s very appropriate to present both sides of this case, and some good points are made in this response.

There are however two fairly important points not addressed by this response. 

1. There are existing byelaws which could have been used to clamp down on the unwanted behaviour, but I understand that no prosecutions have been brought. I’m not sure it’s appropriate to use unpunished criminal behaviour as a justification for introducing new criminal offences.

2. The 8% reduction in the permissible camping area may sound reasonable, but the proposed changes also give DNPA a new power to reduce the area of permissible camping at any time without further consultation, which is a significant and very valid concern raised by John Bainbridge which has not been addressed in this article.

I hope DNPA listen carefully to the concerns of those of us who already value and respect the moor, and reconsider some of the proposed changes. 

 Andy Hardy 27 Sep 2021
In reply to Steve Woollard:

Do you mountain bike on Dartmoor?

 Stone Muppet 27 Sep 2021
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Do you ever sleep in a van?

 Rob Moon 27 Sep 2021
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Having been part of the initial pre public consultation I'm very cynical of DNPA's intentions. At face value the proposals would appear quite reasonable but earlier in the summer, when I first talked to Alison kholer, she tried to persuade me to support a plan to remove over 40% of the wild camping permission (the initial proposal was to remove all permission within 1km of a vehicular highway). It became obvious that this idea was land owner lead move rather than serving the interests of those who currently have the legal right to wild camp on areas of dartmoor.  Alison's comment here fails to address the point that written into the current proposal is a clause that gives the DNPA free reign to remove whatever permission they wish without full legal scrutiny. I would warn those who are inclined to trust the statement that the park authorities prefered end game is to permanently remove a large portion of the current permission.  The current proposal will allow them to achieve that without further opposition. The park authority is using the actions of a few antisocial roadside fly-campers to lend gravity to their attempt to take back permission from people who's are not to blame for the problem. It's dirty politics and needs to be strongly opposed. 

I for one will not support giving away our legal right to wildcamp and advise others to consider which side of this line they wish to stand. Are we to give away our rights, or each do what we can to stop this proposal from passing into law?

 Rob Moon 28 Sep 2021
In reply to Steve Woollard:

Hi Steve. Alisons article casually ignores the fact that hidden in the proposal is the provision to remove a lot more of the permission as DNPA see's fit. Not only that but it turns any act of camping outside the permission from a civil to criminal offence. 

These are areas that we currently have the legal right to camp on, many have never been subject to misuse by fly-campers, let alone legitimate wild campers. This proposal is an attempt to overturn our legal right to camp on the lands involved. 

 Wainers44 28 Sep 2021
In reply to Rob Moon:

> Having been part of the initial pre public consultation I'm very cynical of DNPA's intentions. At face value the proposals would appear quite reasonable but earlier in the summer, when I first talked to Alison kholer, she tried to persuade me to support a plan to remove over 40% of the wild camping permission (the initial proposal was to remove all permission within 1km of a vehicular highway). It became obvious that this idea was land owner lead move rather than serving the interests of those who currently have the legal right to wild camp on areas of dartmoor.  Alison's comment here fails to address the point that written into the current proposal is a clause that gives the DNPA free reign to remove whatever permission they wish without full legal scrutiny. I would warn those who are inclined to trust the statement that the park authorities prefered end game is to permanently remove a large portion of the current permission.  The current proposal will allow them to achieve that without further opposition. The park authority is using the actions of a few antisocial roadside fly-campers to lend gravity to their attempt to take back permission from people who's are not to blame for the problem. It's dirty politics and needs to be strongly opposed. 

> I for one will not support giving away our legal right to wildcamp and advise others to consider which side of this line they wish to stand. Are we to give away our rights, or each do what we can to stop this proposal from passing into law?

Thanks for the insight which is deeply concerning. The whole premise of the changes seem flawed to me. Wild camping on Dartmoor is not a problem and as someone who walks and camps there very regularly it is a very quiet and lonely place away from a small number of honeypots. 

You have to look carefully to see the small amount of wild camping out on the moor and in all the many many days spent there I have never seen any issue with that sort of remote camping.

In the winter I camp while helping train youngsters for Ten Tors and I can honestly say that their presence on the moor is a massively positive thing, not only because they leave every site used spotlessly clean but crucially that it embeds the whole idea of the moor being a precious and wonderful place at a very early age. 

This rubbish about only an 8% reduction in camping area is also very misleading.  Dartmoor is wonderfully boggy, steep, tussocky and usually all three. Wild camping spots are small and fun to hunt for....unless it's dark, pouring with rain and blowing a gale.....when the task becomes type 2 fun. The valleys and fringes are good to head for, many are now not to be used if the changes are passed.

As I and others have posted, the effect of these revisions will be felt mainly by those who care for the moor and who's camping has never been an issue. The idiots will ignore the rules, dump their rubbish and light their fires. DNPA need to reflect on why, if this summer really has been so bad, there have been few (any?) cases of enforcement or fines issued? That's the bit that needs fixing. 

And the ability to change the rules at will in the future with a single meeting is just plain wrong and DNPA should be ashamed of themselves for even putting something like that forward at all. 

 C Witter 28 Sep 2021
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

With no disrespect to the author of this article, over the years, I've learnt that whenever the powers that be are challenged, they will, whoever they are, reply in much the same manner:

1. You're deeply mistaken and ill-informed about the detail of our plans
2. You've not properly considered this arcane process
3. You were consulted and we're sorry that you didn't make the most of the opportunity
4. We are only taking reasonable steps to protect x
5. Your fears are unfounded and we're surprised and disappointed that you feel that way

Meanwhile, all the probing questions will be dodged and the actual intentions obscured in a fog of vaguely reassuring platitudes.
 

 Lankyman 28 Sep 2021
In reply to C Witter:

Always the case, in so many situations from politics to work and points between. I've never walked on Dartmoor (shame!) but I'd be manning the barricades to stop this. As others have stated, the problems are due to a small, antisocial minority and THEY are the ones whose fun and games need to be spoiled, not the considerate, law-abiding true lovers of the wild.

1
 Bulls Crack 28 Sep 2021
In reply to Steve Woollard:

I too don't think the proposals are unreasonable but they do to some extent represent the usual restrictive reaction to a 'problem' rather than an enabling approach. Covid has highlighted the  need to invest in our outdoors more, provide more and better facilities where people go and spread the load around more. They would perhaps be better if they came with some more positive actions eg opening up routes, sites etc but, resources will be limited. 

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Ms Kohler's response to John Bainbridge couldn't be anymore patronising if she tried. She has failed to answer the concerns of an evermore distrustful community that are being criminalised for the sake of, lets face it, a handful of wrong-doers.

And before we criticise those that got it 'wrong' let us just take stock of the fact that there was (and still is) a pandemic sweeping the planet. Our nation responded to the challenges of 2020 by surrendering their freedoms to protect the NHS; this was a time when mass mortuaries were running out of space, when people were afraid for their families, and we were told by our Prime Minister that "we would lose loved ones before their time". The influx of people into the countryside is what they were being INSTRUCTED to do by daily briefings from No 10 - exercise, keep your distance, fresh air. For the most part the 'wrong-doers' knew no better and were entirely unaware that there were local restrictions in place. And what did the DNPA do to provide facilities? The increased footfall within the national park should be celebrated and facilitated; additional toilets, parking, interpretation, education - EDUCATION not LEGISLATION!

The byelaws that are currently in place could tackle any of the foreseen problems, you cannot misinterpret "no camping within 100m of a road", and yet the DNPA did nothing about it; so how on earth does extending the current restrictions aid existing byelaws? Existing byelaws that they have dramatically failed to uphold in the first place - how does it meet their stated aims! All it will achieve is the alienation of those of us who have maintained and upheld the law thus far.

The DNPA is supporting, lock stock and barrel, the wishes of the landowners. The byelaw revision isn't just about camping, they are enforcing many other areas of recreation activity. At the meeting where this proposal was approved (sept 3rd) the DNPA stated that they considerd banning the launching of kayaks - but felt that there was enough legislation in place to deal with that already - This gives you a picture of the things to come!

Other National parks embrace, welcome and help outdoor users of all persuasions, the DNPA just seems to outlaw what a small number of landowners object to. They've become the mouthpiece and spirit of a legitimised 'Farmer Palmer' shouting get off moy laaand or I'll fine 'e' 500 quid! AND reserving the right to expand wild camping bans without further consultation.

So that's now a £500 for:

  • Riding a bicycle anywhere other than a bridle path.
  • Having a dog on lead lower than 2m.
  • LNT camping on open country.
  • Camping with a 4 man tent.
  • More than 6 people camped within an undefined radius.
  • "Occupying" a vehicle after 9pm!
  • Hitting a golf ball.
  • Flying a drone.

And most dramatically - Limiting our freedom of association with others to 50 people! a freedom that is upheld in article 11 of the Human Rights Bill.

This proposal is nothing short of a power-grab by a local authority that would rather many freedoms of public access didn't exist. They are putting into place localised law where national legislation already has primacy, thus enabling an increase in revenue while upholding the wishes of landowners who's land would be a public right of access anyway. The Dartmoor commons act, in respect of public access, has ben superseded by the CRoW Act for what is undeniably open country.

The DNPA will be looking just a bit silly when they become the first park authority to provoke a reenactment of '1932 on Kinder Scout' for recklessly infringing on the freedoms of our great British countryside. 

Post edited at 10:20
1
 ChrisJD 28 Sep 2021
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

.... "The revisions seek to withdraw some small areas (around 8% in total)' ... 

Following their link, this 8% equates to 2,419 hectares = 24 square kilometres = c. 5 km x 5 km

How is that 'some small area' ??

 Toby_W 28 Sep 2021
In reply to Dartmoor Access Group:

Don't forget Mary Poppins won't be welcome anymore.  No more Kite flying.  Obviously a huge problem on the Moors.

Cheers

Toby

 AukWalk 29 Sep 2021
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I not sure what the author's aim was in writing this article, but by failing to convincingly refute the concerns raised, they have reinforced them.  Doesn't come across as being very open or honest given the context. 


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...