It’s difficult to imagine why this land in Nidderdale might be closed on these days during the grouse shooting season – but the closure does not affect the rights of way.
A land owner can restrict public access for 28 days/year without having to give any reason – this seems perfectly fair to me. There are lots of things that a land owner might be doing where people wandering about are a safety risk or simply a pain in the backside.
I wonder how much shooting is actually going on in this part of the world this season anyway.
[registration_form]
England’s access legislation is pathetic. It needs to be brought into the current century.
England needs dragged into the current century.
Surely the land owner must supply Natural England with a reason for the closure or is this yet another get out that Natural England have allowed the shooters by not asking for a reason?
If so then one is bound to think what activities may be going on and whether these are leading to the killing of raptors and other wildlife and the burning of our peat bogs?
Many estates including some in Nidderdale use their discretionary closure days in late spring, this is suspected of being to deal with unwanted raptor nests by many (including me) but they cannot in spring and summer keep you off at weekends. The discretionary days were probably meant to cover shoot days but are not defined as such. When access first came in ( in Nidderdale I think 2004) all estates immediately used their D days so no estates were apparently open access———– As always playing the bastards, but then that is what they are.
Searching the web with “natural england case number 2020079249”
brings up a hit for https://www.gov.uk/guidance/protected-species-licences-register-to-apply-for-and-manage-licences-online
And other stuff. Explanation.
The web search stuff probably excludes (or is excluded from) a search on the actual case number – 2020079249 – which may/will likely require a FoI request. Gaining direct access to the case may open up data which is not open to public scrutiny. Hence the web search excludes (or is excluded from) that and it becomes a search for “natural england case number”. Which explains the returned links.
It doesn’t explain the error messages returned by the NE website, though. Those were website specific.
No. The person restricting access on these dates is acting in accordance with section 22 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. They are required to notify the relevant authority (hence the sign) but do not require its permission. The legislation was enacted by the Labour Government in 2000. Natural England was brought into being in 2006; prior to that date (from 1990) it was English Nature that was the statutory body responsible for nature conservation in England.
What the owners are planning to do on those dates and how detrimental it may be for wildlife is another question on which we can only speculate.
If it is closed due to land managers discretion then is Natural England approval or consent actually required? Is that get out clause one of those bits of small print? Or given the pressure we are told NE staff are under have they been instructed from on high to fully co-operate with land owners?
It seems to me that the time is long overdue where there needs to be a serious review of funding being given to large estates who are not able to evidence public benefit, environmental benefit etc.
But, how can this take place when there are so many such interests in the corridors of power holding the power and preventing change?
Turkeys do not in my experience vote for Christmas ….
Are the maps presented in the real world (i.e. at physical access points), or just on the NE website? I’m assuming that the image of the map is on or adjacent to an access point, and that there’s no legal reason for not publicising its location?
Error returned by your Natural England website link…
“Mapping service not available, please try again later. To return to the open access home pages please click here”
Footnote to the error message.
“If this problem persists please email the OACC”
The OACC? Who are they? What e-mail?
These? http://www.oacc.co.uk/
I assume the closures were for planned shooting days. But in this case why do the closures have to apply for the entire day? Surely you are not interrupting any important activities by going for a stroll in the late evening – are you?
The blogger is deliberating ambiguous and provocative, seeking the attention, ‘likes’ and comments that he seems to crave. He of all people will know the letter of the law, and know that the Right to Roam was placed in law by the CRoW Act, as stated in the comments by Jonathan Wallace, by a Labour government. Under that law, the landowner has the right to restrict access for up to 28 days per annum, with some further stipulations regarding Bank Holidays and weekends. To suggest in the comments that this is a Natural England bias in favour of the owner, is ludicrous. As is, again in the comments, the suggestion that owners seek to restrict access in the spring so they can persecute BoP. Restricting access in the spring is timed to give all the ground nesting birds, that do so well on managed moorland, the best possible odds of breeding successfully. Actually, it’s about the birds, but you forgot that.
Assuming the author was in Nidderdale in person, and that the photo is current, then there was fair chance we’d have bumped into one another – I was there too – and I’d have given him a piece of my mind. I wonder whether he, or his accomplice looked up and saw the 10+ kites, numerous buzzards, and two Hen Harriers that I spotted on my wanderings there? The assertion that there are no BoP in Nidderdale is utter rubbish….
Justin SO – did you not notice the link in the text to the page that sets out that owners can close access for 28 days a year? On present evidence I’m not sure you can affod to be giving away pieces of your mind. Nidderdale is a well-known raptor persecution hotspot – Red Kites especially. Of course they have to get there to be killed there.
“The assertion that there are no BoP in Nidderdale is utter rubbish….”
I’m sorry what assertion? Who’s assertion. I have read the blog and all the comments and can find no such assertion.