Any exceptions to 28 days camping

[carlight]

hi ,

well , i did 4 years as a seasonally employed agricultural worker , before the council acted , am now on 6 years as a seasonally employed forestry worker ,on the same site . I did enquire at the council as to the meaning of that 'seasonally' - they were not able elucidate .

So , the seasons for felling ,splitting ,charcoaling, and so on - sort of makes a year ...

It does only take one or two complaints for the council to act .

It might be worth telling your 'friends' that you are considering employing some forestry workers who will park up with their dogs and families ,that the council would be fine with it , etc - or maybe the 'friends' would be happier if it was just you .

Or ,even better apply for a temp event notice - 500 people ,again ,them 'friends' are going to quickly like the fact that it's just you at your woods .

best wishes .

[austino]

Sounds like i am being to timid. I have had all their complaints about me to forestry commision, natural england, council and woolands .co.uk some more than once but never to me. The point is they have got nothing to say to me because they know i'm doing nothing wrong so instead make up lies and half truths in the hope of causing me grief. All this because i will not let them on my land. Right at the start if they had approached me in a decent manner i would probably made some sort of concession, maybe they can come in when i'm there but the dogs must be on leads. But now, no chance , not never. When i see them i will say i have never given them any reason for any problems but from here on in any more hassle and i will do my log sawing etc all weekend by my gate giving them reason to be upset but no grounds for complaint. That with ample bonfires etc should make them realise what an awkward neighbour realy is.

[Stephen1]

Hi Austino

I would still suggest trying to come to some sort of rapprochment with these unfortunate neighbours of yours.

I think it's important to remember that we do not own our land absolutely. What we effectively own is extra 'rights' over 'our' land above and beyond those of the general public. These rights are subject to change at any time.

Before the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 you could build on land that you owned without having to get permmision from anyone - you just needed to prove you owned the land. That 'right' of ownership was removed.

There was a time when you didn't need a felling license from the Forestry commision before you could fell your trees. There was a time when you could grub out the trees from your wood and convert the land to pasture without needing permmision. Those were both 'rights' of ownership which have been removed.

For Hill Farmers - there was a time when the general public had to stick to Public Footpaths but the CROW act (Right to Roam) changed that, and now people can walk wherever they like on it. Those farmers 'rights' of ownership changed with no compensation in return.

There was talk at the time of the CROW act of including woodland in the 'Right to Roam' areas - this was dropped then. However since the farce of the recent, now dropped, proposal to sell of the Forestry commissions woods public access to woodland has come back on the agenda. It's a relatively cheap thing for a government to do. It 'gives' the public a big 'gift' of access at very little expense to the exchequer- it would be a popular decision with the overwhelming majority of the population.

I wouldn't bet against woodland owners losing the 'right' to exclude people from there woods within the next 10 years.

All our 'rights' of ownership are relative and subject to change (even very dramatic change) - as I say we are not absolute owners of our little kingdoms. We only 'own' them as a series of rights within the context of our society.

The history of land ownership in the U.K. has been one of a continuous loss of rights. I don't think anyone can argue that it's all been bad - There was a time when you could deter tresspassers with Man Traps and Rock Salt shotgun cartridges.

For what it's worth I think that a general 'Right to Roam' in woodland would be a terrible step from a conservation point of view, but I think you need to keep in mind the possiblilty that your neighbours might be handed the right of access to 'your' woodland at some point in the future - how might they act then after years of exclusion and unpleasantness? I would avoid making any threats to them and see if there is any compromise you can make.

Bad relationships with neighbours can spoil so much of the potential pleasure of woodland ownership. How much of the time when you're at your woods are you thinking of these neighbours and this stressful/annoying situation, rather than really enjoying yourself and being at peace there? Try and go for compromise not threats if you possibly can - would it really be that bad if they walked in the woods when you weren't there?...But if that fails remember you can always murder them and bury their bodies deep in the woods!

[Keith Williams]

Or you could lease these people sole rights to use your land for dog walking while you're not there. They sound the types that would jealously guard their 'sole right' and act as excellent protectors for your woods when you're not there.

[steve rollnick]

I must say that I agree with the spirit of Stephen and Keith's words.

[austino]

Excellent idea. The more grief, rudeness etc someone gives you the more you reward them. Can you imagine the conversation." Never met you before but feel I know you intimately having dealt with all the lies and half truths you have spread. Thanks for the time and effort you have cost me clearing up your fly tipping (3 days) and a special thanks for the lies you have told the council resulting in them entering my land by way of enforcement to view my kettle and toilet. By way of recompense I would like to offer you access to my land. Perhaps whilst your at it should you wish to stay overnight, please feel free! Maybe a better option might be is for you to give me the £120k I payed and afford me these rights", I doubt it!

I see myself not so much as an owner but as a guardian. My reward for my purchase is to enjoy with my family the solitude and a unique insight in nature at work. For this I will do my best to look after the land and improve (UNDER GUIDANCE), so it there for generations in the furure. I will happily share what I have with fiends, family, and maybe coservation groups etc. I like the idea of having scouts etc visit the land and ultimately would possibly leave the woods to a scout group with special access for my family. However I choke on the idea of giving access to this couple giving me grief. The reason perhaps more than any other is I know if the land were theirs they would allow absolutely no one on it, and would instead view the other woodland owners and start complaining about them.

May they fester in their cosey, nosey lives. But you are right they have taken away some of what I wanted to achieve by letting them upset me and my family.

[wrekin]

I almost posted this yesterday: people like austino's neighbours will always want more ("stop cutting down our lovely trees!" would be next) and will never be placated by giving ground. They have demonstrated this by their campaign of harrassment via all these unfounded and malicious complaints they've made, without having the decency to discuss it with him directly. They're cut from the same cloth as the stalkers who will not let go and the neighbours who fight you for years over a strip of garden the width of a pencil line on the deeds: nasty, obsessive narcicissists who have no boundaries unless other people set them.

austino: it's your land. You've paid for it. You've paid for the exclusive right to enjoy it, and part of that is not having to share it with unsavoury characters like your neighbours.

[Stephen1]

I think I understand how the situation developed now. Good luck Austino.

It would be interesting to know how you'd advise someone with a similar problem once you've owned these woods for a couple of decades. Be careful that the party "festering" isn't you. Every time you arrive at your woods is your first thought going to be an angry one about them and what they might have done or be doing, or a happy one about the long tail tits nesting in the oak by the main ride? If you're not careful they will define the experience of woodland ownership for you.

An area of woodland isn't a discrete entity that you own like an eighty inch plasma screen tv. It sits in the landscape as part of many large webs; Ecologically (new diseases, too many deer), socially/politically/legally and psychologically. I won't patronise you by spelling out how each of these can bring dissapointments and disrupt the 'control' you expected over the wood you paid "£120k" for. If you want to fight fire with fire over any of these aspects of ownership, to try and obtain what you expected and demand your ownership/control of this wood should be, then even if you bring a bigger and hotter fire to the party you're just going to end up with a bigger black mess to try and enjoy.

I suggested compromise not the capitulation you indicated in your reply- the two things are very different. I've taken the time to offer what I only present as my point of view to you not to deliberately annoy you, or because I want an argument with you, but in the hope that you can avoid letting this situation spoil the whole experience for you. I let a very similar situation ruin much of the first few years of woodland ownership for me. I hope you can resolve your problems more quickly and elegantly than my initial inexperienced approach acheived nearly twenty years ago...

[Darren]

We have a neighbour just like yours.. He has called the local council which has had a good look around the woods. We have not had any more letters back. I can imagine them scratching their heads wondering what to do. The law is on my side as it is for you.

As for your neighbours, do not go out your way to annoy them. When you see them just be polite and smile and wave. I find this annoys those who want to make your life hard.

You can have a caravan there and stay there for forestry purposes. Take pictures of what you are doing for evidence. I know it can be frustrating, but at least it is not you doing all the running around and failing. ;)

[austino]

Please understand one and all that in no way have I taken offence by anyones comments. Quite the opposite. I thank one and all for taking the time and patience in responding to my ramblings. The fact i've never spoken to the gentleman concerned has frustrated me. In my life if I have an issue I try to confront it and resolve it. I try to understand where that person is standing and empaphise. I beleive in compromise as some of you do also. However I have no where left to go. My frustration leads me to make comments about retaliation. In practice as one person said my actual response will be to ignore, maybe smile and wave ( non-confrontationaly). I am determined not to let them spoil our haven.