Uk "right To Roam" Access Land Question

[davester]

I've been looking for a decent answer to this question on all the governments pages about the new Right to Roam laws. I've exercised my right to roam on new access land in the Peak District a fair bit already and have one question.

 

What do I do when faced with a wall/fence? Can I cross it as long as I cause no damage?

 

The main reason I ask is I have a spot in mind for a new cache. There would be two ways to access the cache. One by walking along an edge path for some 3 miles, or the other by parking below the edge and following a winding path upwards. Unfortunately the winding path would involve the scaling of several walls (all on access land).

[+The J J Noodle Fan Club]

From what I read in the paper (so totally unreliable?! ) yes - you can climb a wall/fence etc but:

 

If you damage the wall/fence you are liable.

If you injure yourself the landowner is not liable (even if say a wall has fallen into such disrepair that you lightly brushed it and it fell on you - ordinarially if the wall was next to a publc right of way the landowner would have been negligent)

 

Jon.

[+Brenin Tegeingl]

Short answer "No", you may only access throu gates, styles, and other legal entrances, unless a legal Right of Way is "blocked". If you go into the Geocaching resources pinned to the top of the UK board. You will find a very simple (but non legal, hey I'm not a lawyer ) document on Row's & and the CROW Act 2000. Feel free to print it out, pass it around, it is all based on information over the net from official sites. You could still plant them, just have to work out a legal way of getting to them, oh and even if land is open access, you must still "obtain the permission of the landowner", there is list of activitys covered under the CROW 2000, and unfortunately Geocaching is not listed on them!

 

I'm not here. and didn't write this

[+harrogate hunters]

Be also careful, as you as setter, could also be liable if another cacher causes the damage, or injury.

 

The landowner (or cacher) could sue you as the 'owner' of the box, and therefore 'inviting' people to access the land !

 

Personally I would avoid, or stress in your notes that the only way to the cache is the three mile walk. Forbid anyone to use the direct approach.

[+The Forester]

What do I do when faced with a wall/fence? Can I cross it as long as I cause no damage?

 

The main reason I ask is I have a spot in mind for a new cache.

I'm not familiar with the new law in England, but I have been examining the new Scottish access code very carefully. Although Scottish land access laws have been quite different to English law for centuries, the recent leislation brings to two countries' systems into broad agreement on most aspects of access.

 

Climbing a wall or fence is OK, with the proviso you mention of not damage any part of such a structure.

 

There is a cache-placing guideline that accessing the cache should not involving crossing fences or walls other than at puprose-built style and gates, but that's a GC thing, not national law.

 

Here's a paste of what the Scottish countryside access code says:

 

3.38 In exercising access rights in the outdoors, you will encounter fences,

drystane dykes and other similar features. These are very important in land

management and can cost a lot of time and effort to put up and look after. Use a

gate, stile or other access point where these have been provided. Make sure

that you leave all gates as you find them. If you come across a closed gate,

make sure that you close it again as, for example, farm animals and horses may

otherwise escape and cause injury to themselves and other property. If a gate is

locked and you need to go over it, then make sure that you climb the gate at the

hinged end and take care not to damage it. Do not park your car, van or bike in

front of entrances to fields and buildings.

 

3.39 Drystane dykes and fences can sometimes be easily damaged. If you

need to go over one, make sure you do so near to fence posts or where the wall

looks strongest. Take care to avoid damaging the wall or fence.

 

 

Cheers, The Forester

[+Happy Humphrey]

Dave,

It doesn't matter whether it's access land or not, people should not be encouraged to climb over walls. It's impossible to climb a wall without causing damage: the damage might be virtually invisible at first but even if everyone is careful, eventually there will be visible damage. The landowner would be justifiably annoyed with that - not what we're trying to achieve.

 

If the walls are dry stone walls, you'll realise that severe damage is inevitable. If I'm off the path on a walk, I'd never cross a dry stone wall except at a gate or stile (or gap!), even if it means quite a considerable diversion and even if I would repair any damage.

 

It has to be the three mile walk in this case!

 

See Home View - a cache which has a similar warning.

 

HH

[+Eckington]

 

 

There is a cache-placing guideline that accessing the cache should not involving crossing fences or walls other than at puprose-built style and gates, but that's a GC thing, not national law.

 

.....and that being the case it is one of the things that I would check up on when reviewing the cache submission, GC.com guidelines have to be observed.

[+The Hungry Caterpillars]

I am not sure how the new acts will actually work and as far as I know have not been tested in law. Saying that I always try to avoid climbing walls/fences so as not to damage them or upset the landowner. I have noticed that in some areas land covered is actually being provided with access points.It has already been pointed out about guidelines already.I was hoping somebody with theoretical and practical knowledge in this area would be available through G.A.G.B perhaps? If not why not?

[davester]

I'm not familiar with the new law in England, but I have been examining the new Scottish access code very carefully. Although Scottish land access laws have been quite different to English law for centuries, the recent leislation brings to two countries' systems into broad agreement on most aspects of access.

 

Climbing a wall or fence is OK, with the proviso you mention of not damage any part of such a structure.

 

There is a cache-placing guideline that accessing the cache should not involving crossing fences or walls other than at puprose-built style and gates, but that's a GC thing, not national law.

 

I've actually been in touch with someone at Derbyshire County Council since posting this morning to ask about this. He confirmed that once on access land, you may cross a wall or fence in any manner that doesn't damage it. You are not permitted to cross a wall or fence to enter or leave areas of access land.

 

Now would I not be right in presuming that the GC.com guidelines are written for a global outlook and the provision of access land in law should allow that land to be used to the full? I accept that in most instances that the crossing of a wall/fence would be a contravention of access rights, but it isn't on CROW access land.

 

Therefore would the following example not be acceptable for the cache page?

 

As well as the long walk along the edge, the cache can also be accessed from the east by climbing to the edge from the layby on the road. To access from this direction, take the public footpath to the boundary of access land and follow the track to the cache. This route involves the scaling of three walls en route. The CROW Act 2000 permits the crossing of these boundaries provided you do so in a way that causes no damage.

[SlytherinAlex]

Therefore would the following example not be acceptable for the cache page?

 

As well as the long walk along the edge, the cache can also be accessed from the east by climbing to the edge from the layby on the road. To access from this direction, take the public footpath to the boundary of access land and follow the track to the cache. This route involves the scaling of three walls en route. The CROW Act 2000 permits the crossing of these boundaries provided you do so in a way that causes no damage.

Probably acceptable, but I would think that it would seriously restrict the number of people who would attempt to find your cache. Many people, myself included wouldn't climb over walls whether it is within your rights to do so or not.

[+Happy Humphrey]

once on access land, you may cross a wall or fence in any manner that doesn't damage it

 

I'd interpret that as meaning you can't climb over dry stone walls at all, as damage can't be avoided. A fence would be a different matter: so would a wall you can step over. What are the walls like on your proposed route?

 

It sounds very odd that there's a track all the way, but it still entails crossing three walls. I really think that the person who has to pay for or repair the walls should agree that these ones can be climbed over before you submit the cache, or else Eckington would quite rightly request that this route suggestion is removed. It's only using common sense and good manners, whatever the legal situation.

 

HH

[davester]

once on access land, you may cross a wall or fence in any manner that doesn't damage it

 

I'd interpret that as meaning you can't climb over dry stone walls at all, as damage can't be avoided. A fence would be a different matter: so would a wall you can step over. What are the walls like on your proposed route?

 

It sounds very odd that there's a track all the way, but it still entails crossing three walls. I really think that the person who has to pay for or repair the walls should agree that these ones can be climbed over before you submit the cache, or else Eckington would quite rightly request that this route suggestion is removed. It's only using common sense and good manners, whatever the legal situation.

 

HH

Well. I crossed two dry stone walls without damaging them last saturday so I'm not sure where you are coming from there. The walls in question are all dry stone walls, all in various states of disrepair.

 

I over-simplified in my example as the cacher would need to leave the track near the cache and cross the walls at that point.

[+Teasel]

You are not permitted to cross a wall or fence to enter or leave areas of access land.

My understanding from conversations with Peak District National Park rangers is that this isn't correct. I believe that you are allowed to cross a wall or fence to enter or leave areas of access land. In areas where a public road or footpath runs alongside new access land, the National Park has been busy installing access points (stiles, gates etc) to encourage people onto the land. However, where an access point has not yet been installed, you are still entitled to cross into the access land.

 

Of course, you can only cross a wall or fence to enter/leave access land if you have a right to be on the land you are entering from / leaving to. So you can't just hop out of access land into the middle of some farmer's field!

 

There is plenty of government money available to farmers who wish to add stiles and gates to their walls and fences, and hundreds have already been installed. Some walls may not yet have stiles because the farmer does not yet know what routes people will take across the land. Occasionally, a farmer may be opposed to people exercising their right of access at all. In either case, while a single person climbing a dry stone wall should not cause major damage if done carefully, the cumulative effect of many people climbing over at the same place will cause enough wear and tear to encourage the siting of a proper crossing point at that place, and so enhance the countryside for everyone's enjoyment.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Dave,

When forced to, I've managed to get over the occasional wall without causing any obvious damage, I must admit. It's just not recommended - not everyone is as agile or careful as you are. And one person may cross a wall without leaving any sign, but what if ten people cross it at the same point?

 

After a while, stones on the top move a bit with people's feet, and as you step off the top of the wall, stones are likely to get kicked back over the other side where you can't recover them to fix the damage.

 

I was stuck trying to get out of a forest last year and, despite claiming that I would never do this, found myself faced with the option of crossing the boundary wall (dry stone) or returning back through the thick, pathless forest. I crossed the wall, but it was very slippery on top and I'm afraid I knocked a large stone off as I jumped from the top over the accompanying barbed wire fence. I had no way of recovering the stone so the wall was left damaged. Sorry, wall owner! This is why I picked up on this thread as I felt quite guilty about the damage.

 

If the walls you're talking about are of the semi-demolished type with gaps in them perhaps it's reasonable to step across them. Otherwise, why not make a feature of the longer route and just not mention the short cut at all? Read the logs on "Home View" and see what a local geocacher thought to someone crossing stone walls to reach their cache.

 

Where I'm "coming from" really is just that it seems a bad idea to introduce potential conflict when it's not necessary.

 

HH

[+Happy Humphrey]

Interesting post by Teasel: I suppose ideally, Dave, you should ask the landowner to set up stiles so the cache can be reached by the short route without damaging his walls. It depends on the amount of effort you want to put in, how long you want to wait and whether you're confident about your diplomacy skills!

 

HH

[davester]

With the example of the Home View/Castleberg pairing, my brief look at the provisional access maps for the area seem to suggest that I would be entitled to walk from one to the other. That the walls are there and need crossing is irrelevant.

[+Teasel]

And one person may cross a wall without leaving any sign, but what if ten people cross it at the same point?

Sounds to me like a good place to install a stile!

 

Unlike most publically accessible land, CRoW act land has no recent history of public access, so much of it is currently inaccessible without crossing walls and fences. Stiles and gates are being installed as fast as the need is identified, but this will take time. In many cases the need for access at a particular point was "obvious" and provision was made in a proactive manner, but further provision will need to react to how the public chooses to use the newly open land. The government realises this and has made ongoing funds available.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you should kick a few stones off the top of each dry stone wall you cross, just to let the farmer know that you've been there! But nor should anyone feel guilty for carefully crossing a fence or wall on access land.

[+MarcB]

Be also careful, as you as setter, could also be liable if another cacher causes the damage, or injury.

Is this correct? I've always wondered...

MarcB

[+Happy Humphrey]

Dave,

 

I would be entitled to walk from one to the other

 

That may well be the case, but because we're legally allowed to do something it doesn't mean that we should actively encourage it! The walls might not be irrelevant to the farmer (I'm not a farmer or landowner, by the way, and I walked over 200 miles in England last year, excluding geocaching trips).

 

I think we should still stick to the Countryside Code whatever the access situation - I believe the CC is still valid and serves a useful purpose. Although it doesn't forbid the climbing of walls, it does discourage it. I think we have to be realistic - many landowners are going to install stiles only when they're asked to, and if geocachers end up causing aggravation with people we have to share the land with it's not going to help us in the long term.

 

In this case, it sounds like there isn't a nearby "official" access point to the land you want to place the cache on, so you should contact the Local Authority and the Ramblers' Association, who will ensure that the three mile walk is reduced to something more suitable for your plans. The relevant guidance is at the foot of this page here.

 

Hope it works out!

 

HH

[+The Forester]

the cumulative effect of many people climbing over at the same place will cause enough wear and tear to encourage the siting of a proper crossing point at that place, and so enhance the countryside for everyone's enjoyment.

There are some very generous grants available for the construction of paths in woodland and for the construction of such things as kissing gates and styles.

 

Here's a selection of the current rates of grant available:

 

Light use or dry site footpath construction, a light scrape, 1.2m wide with 20cm depth of type 1 metal and top layer of whindust, vibrator rolled. Includes stream crossings of up to 1m == £9 per metre.

 

Heavy use or wet or steep site footpath construction, 2.0m wide, 30cm depth type 1 material and top layer of whindust, vibrator rolled. Includes strem crossings of up to 1m == £16.20 per metre.

 

Short sections of footpath construction requiring manual construction and gabion barriers == £22.50 per metre

 

Kissing gate for walkers == £234.00

 

Kissing gate for diabled users == £360.00

 

Style for crossing stock fence, with one hand-hold == £49.50

 

Style for crossing deere fence == £108.00

 

With grants like these, it's usually not very difficult to persuade woodland owners to install suitable infrastructure.

 

There are also plenty of other sources of grant funding for such work and materials. I'm onvolved in a project to snatall sveral miles of new and ipgraded paths in the rural area which surrounds my local village. In just a month, which straddled the winter holiday season, we obtained a firm promise of £20K from the Council and we are well on our way to quintupling that budget with grants and gifts from others sources of fund such as the Lottery people and a very large local employer which refines almost all the petrol, diesel, heating oil and jet fuel which is used in Scotland. Negotiating with most landowners has been much less difficult than I had anticipated.

 

Step 1 is to hold a local consultation to find out wher the locals want and do not want paths to go. Step 2 is to survey the suggested routes, to find out local issues on the ground, such as fallen trees which need to be cleared, landowners who decline to co-operate, the condition of any pre-existing path, the presence of fences, ditches and walls across the routes, the presence of hostile dogs etc. Step 3 is to obtain a promise of funding from the Council. Step 4 is to go back to the local community for a further consulating, to present the detailed plan and to check for any objectors. Step 5 is to seek matching commitmentf funds from other sources.

 

Community woodland schemes are planned and executed in pretty much the same way.

 

For path creation the timeline from initial inception to having boots on paths is tyypically somewhere between 6 and 18 months, depending on the time of year when it's started and whether you have any non-co-operative landowners. If a landowner objects to having a path put in across his/her land, then my advice is to forget about that route. It's just not worth the hassle. Councils do have powers such as compulsory purchase, but they are understandably reluctant to invoke them because of the stresses and strains and costs and delays which such action would cause. It's much better to patiently 'educate' the owner into the reasons why countryside access is being expanded and formalised and to explain that there are both rights and responsibilites on all sides of these things.

 

In the end, all the effort is well worth it because it is so rewarding to succeed. The occasional failures are soon forgotten - such as my stalled attempt to force the river owning Council of a major city to install salmon ladders on all the weirs along their river and my failed attempt to persuade the Millennium Commission that the re-arborisation of Scotland would be a better place to put £987million than a stupid round tent at Greenwich!

 

Cheers, The Forester

Edited January 13, 2005 by The Forester

[+The Forester]

Whoops! Double post. Sorreee!

Edited January 13, 2005 by The Forester

[+Team Ullium]

The Scottish law must have changed over the years because I was taken to court for tresspassing on fenced off land which had no recognised right of way path on it and I only managed to get off because I had not climbed over any wall, fence or gate and I maintained that I had opened (and later closed) gates, used styles and kept to the unused boundaries of the fields I transversed.

 

Since then I have always been wary of crossing farm land and have gone out of my way to get permission first.

[+Teasel]

because we're legally allowed to do something it doesn't mean that we should actively encourage it!

Usually I'd agree, but in this case no! The opening up of the first area of access land on 19th September was the culmination of the hard work of literally thousands of people across the country. And whilst Alun Michael was unable to attend, I was certainly there at Derbyshire Bridge to witness such a historic occasion!

 

To suggest that people avoid this new access land, until stiles have been installed in all walls on the route they wish to take, undermines the effort that has been made to give the public the legal right to access all this new land. Particularly because part of the official process of opening up this land is to wait and see which routes are popular and then add stiles and gates to those routes, thus further opening up the most popular routes to people who are perhaps not spritely enough to hop over walls and fences.

 

The right to access this land, including its walls and fences, was hard won and we should actively encourage everyone to exercise their new rights. But, as was the strapline of the campaign, with new rights come new responsibilities...

 

Anyway, in the final analysis, the CRoW act is as irrelevant to geocachers as it is to mountain bikers, rock climbers and orienteers (and mountain rescuers looking for somewhere to train!), as it confers no new rights to us. So suggested approach routes should be one of the things discussed when you approach the landowner for permission to place the cache.

[+Eckington]

Anyway, in the final analysis, the CRoW act is as irrelevant to geocachers as it is to mountain bikers, rock climbers and orienteers (and mountain rescuers looking for somewhere to train!), as it confers no new rights to us. So suggested approach routes should be one of the things discussed when you approach the landowner for permission to place the cache.

Excellent and apposite advice Teasel, heed it peeps!

[+Happy Humphrey]

Teasel,

we should actively encourage everyone to exercise their new rights

 

but

 

(the CRoW act) confers no new rights to us

 

...sounds a bit contradictory(?). But on your main point, I'm actually 100% behind the principle of countryside access for all and you're right that we should encourage it. I wish I could have been at Derbyshire Bridge too.

 

I was only voicing doubts about recommending short cuts which involve causing eventual damage to walls, like Dave's proposed short route, or the Home View-Castleberg Rock "steeplechase". That doesn't mean we can't go on the land at all there, but it should be accessed via the existing field gates or footpaths rather than in a straight line over the walls. Obviously there are areas such as Bowland Forest where access is new and land is generally open moorland fenced at the edges - here you might find that you need to climb over the occasional fence, to gain access or cross the land.

 

Of course, if the landowner agrees that you recommend taking the direct route to a cache and doesn't mind repairing the walls and/or adding stiles I can't see a problem. Some farmers are easier to persuade than others, I suspect!

[+The Forester]

The Scottish law must have changed over the years

In 2003 the Scottish Parliament passed a new Act, which substantially alters the right of access in Scotland, but it does not over-ride the existing criminal statutes which involve trespass.

 

Here's what the new Code, which was adopted by Parliament on the 6th of October last year, says about the new rights:

 

A summary of your access rights

 

1. Everyone, whatever their age or ability, has access rights established by the Land

Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. You only have access rights if you exercise them

responsibly.

 

2. You can exercise these rights, provided you do so responsibly, over most land and

inland water in Scotland, including mountains, moorland, woods and forests, grassland,margins of fields in which crops are growing, paths and tracks, rivers and lochs, the coast and most parks and open spaces. Access rights can be exercised at any time of the day or night.

 

3. You can exercise access rights for recreational purposes (such as pastimes, family

and social activities, and more active pursuits like horse riding, cycling, wild camping and taking part in events), educational purposes (concerned with furthering a person’s understanding of the natural and cultural heritage), some commercial purposes (where the activities are the same as those done by the general public) and for crossing over land or water.

 

4. Existing rights, including public rights of way and navigation, and existing rights on

the foreshore, continue.

 

5. The main places where access rights do not apply are:

  houses and gardens, and non-residential buildings and associated land;

  land in which crops are growing;

  land next to a school and used by the school;

  sports or playing fields when these are in use and where the exercise of access

  rights would interfere with such use;

  land developed and in use for recreation and where the exercise of access rights

  would interfere with such use;

  golf courses (but you can cross a golf course provided you don’t interfere with any

  games of golf);

  places like airfields, railways, telecommunication sites, military bases and

  installations, working quarries and construction sites; and

  visitor attractions or other places which charge for entry.

 

6. Local authorities can formally exempt land from access rights for short periods. Local authorities and some other public bodies can introduce byelaws.

 

7. Access rights do not extend to:

  being on or crossing land for the purpose of doing anything which is an offence, such

  as theft, breach of the peace, nuisance, poaching, allowing a dog to worry livestock,

  dropping litter, polluting water or disturbing certain wild birds, animals and plants;

  hunting, shooting or fishing;

  any form of motorised recreation or passage (except by people with a disability              using a vehicle or vessel adapted for their use);

  anyone responsible for a dog which is not under proper control; or to

  anyone taking away anything from the land for a commercial purpose.

 

The Act comes into force in March of this year.

 

It does not alter any of the criminal definitions of trespass or repeal any of those statutes, such as:

 

Aggravated Trespass, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (section 68) which states that a person commits this offence if, in relation to any lawful activity people are engaged in or about to undertake, the person does anything that is intended to intimidate and deter those people or to obstruct or disrupt the activity.

 

Collective Trespass, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (section 61) which states that if two or more people are trespassing with common purpose to reside on land for any time, and :

  have caused damage or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or have between them 6 or more vehicles: then they can be directed to leave by the police. If they fail to do so, they commit an offence.

 

Driving a vehicle off road.  Under ther Road Traffic Act 1988 (Section 34) it is an offence to drive a motor vehicle without lawful authority on:

  land of any description (not forming part of a road), or

  a footpath or bridleway except in an emergency.

It is not an offence to drive a motor vehicle on land within 15 yards of a road for the purpose of parking the vehicle – although this does not confer any legal right to park the vehicle.

 

Dropping of litter.  Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Section 87) It is an offence to leave litter in any public open place (a place in the open air where you can go without paying).

 

Trespassory assemblies.  Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (Section 70) it is an offence to organise or participate in any trespassory assembly which has been prohibited by a Council on application from the chief officer of police.

(Such prohibitions may only be ordered, for a period of up to 4 days, where such an assembly of 20 or more people would be without the landowners permission, and may

result in serious disruption to the life of the community, or serious damage to land or a building of historical, archaeological or scientific importance).

 

A landowner can ask a trespasser to leave, and if that person refuses, the landowner can take that person to Court, but that's a matter of civil proceedings. If damage can be shown, then the landowner can also take the trespasser to Court. Courts have sometimes been quite wide in their interpretation of what constitutes "damage". For example, if I head for the hills on a geocaching jolly and disturb a stag while it is being stalked, then I have probably ruined most of a a day's shooting and I can be taken to Court for having done so. If I can show that I had contacted the Hillphone number for that area and had no reason to believe that deer-stalking might be in progress, then I might have defence. Otherwise not and it's going to cost me dear.

 

A recurring theme of the new Act and its associated code is that Rights and Responsibilities go hand-in-hand. That applies equally to landowners and to those who take up the new right to roam.

 

Cheers, The Forester

[+The Forester]

So suggested approach routes should be one of the things discussed when you approach the landowner for permission to place the cache.

Hear hear!

 

I particularly like the attitude of responsible cache-placers (tautology?) who give information about a safe and sensible place to park or a local node of public transport in such a way as to indicate a suitable way to commence the walk in to the cache. It not only saves a lot of wasted fuel, but also cuts down on the number of fences which have to be crossed if a cache-hunter starts from a wrong place.

 

Cheers, The Forester