Any exceptions to 28 days camping

[northmetking]

There may be another way to approach this, although this is pure conjecture - I'm just thinking aloud really.

Does anyone know what precisely constitutes camping or spending the night for the purposes of the 28-day rule?

If you are awake during the night, especially doing work, are you deemed to have spent the night there in the "camping sense"?

What if you went for a half-hour walk just before midnight, perhaps past your neighbours' house, and take a dated photo while you're there? Can you really have been deemed to be "camping" if you're walking along the roadside in the middle of the night?

Plenty of time during the day to have a couple of hours' doze to catch up on lost sleep.

Or is it the case that as soon as it gets dark, you're technically spending the night? If so, how does this work in winter, when it's dark at 4 or 5pm? If your alarm goes off before it gets light in the morning, have you actually

spent the night? When does night start and finish?

Anyone got any in-depth knowledge on exactly how one of those 28 days is actually crossed off?

I do like the idea of your neighbours complaining about you staying there overnight, and your response is a photo of yourself outside their house during the night, although of course that may not be seen as "compromising" exactly, and could be more inflammatory to the situation....

[Exeldama]

Thats what i like a bit of lateral thinking..... i would think that a day constitutes residency for either a 24 hour period, ie 2pm -2pm, or it could be any time period that incorporates a turn of day ie sat 8pm til sunday 1am.

Often such things are open to interpretation and thus leeway.

Certainly in the area i work in 24 hour periods are what constitute a day. This all lends weight to your argumnet that should someone break up their occupancy by going awol for a few hours then they are probably not camping. That all said i thought that the 28 day rule didnt apply to basic camping assuming permanent residency wasnt part of it... so assuming your there for a few days and then away again dont think there are any restrictions as such on you... they should go boil their heads.

[wrekin]

The "28 day rule" in the GPDO allows non-forestry temporary changes of use of forestry land for up to 28 days per year. The council have in mind a temporary change of use to recreational camping, and they're saying it exceeds the 28 day limit.

However, you're allowed to live on site if you're doing forestry work, as long as it's for less than a season and you can live in a caravan for that if you like (there's a judgement to that effect, which declined to define "a season".) You don't need to worry about what "overnight" etc means, as the legislation relevant to camping when working doesn't have a 28 day limit or anything written in terms of "nights".

[northmetking]

I agree, it's all a lot of unnecessary nonsense, but nonsense that is obviously upsetting to you, being involved in it.

I fully support the principle of not allowing people to build a conventional house (or worse) in the woods, and I understand that to enforce this, there are quite stringent regulations, but the trouble is, it affects people who quite legitimately just want to spend some time on their own land.

I think that in general the best policy is to be friendly and neighbourly, but there are some people who are beyond that, who will always just be obnoxious for the sake of it, and are very difficult to deal with.

The whole issue of staying in the woods all seems very vague to be honest, from the 28 day rule, to "seasonal" work etc, which is good in that it's open to some flexibility, but also seems to leave people at the whim of

individual local officials.

Just wondering Austino, if they have a dog, if there is a regular time they take the dog for a walk? If you could schedule your visits so you arrive when they are out, nip in and park your car deeper in the woods, out of sight, they might not even know you were there?

[northmetking]

Hi Wrekin,

Thanks for that clarification.

Looking forward to when we get our wood (soon we hope!), I'm sure we will want to do some initial maintenance work in the woods, depending on what needs doing, probably in the autumn, as the months are ticking by this year, but the wood is likely to be a long distance away until we move nearer.

Ben Law said that he couldn't get a yurt approved for seasonal forestry work, as he was told it had to be a caravan.

We don't own a caravan, and I don't want to have to buy one, but from what you're saying, I'm assuming we'd be ok camping in the wood for a while (couple of weeks or whatever) while we carried out any work necessary, but would still have our "recreational" 28 days available, independent of that....

[Stephen1]

The so called "28 day rule" is very vague and out of date.

The first grey area is what and when is a year? Is it any 365 day period or does it run between any specific dates i.e. Jan 1st or April 1st? For example could I have 28 nights in March and 28 in the immediately following April and claim I was using my "allowance" at the tail end of one year and the begining of a second year? Stricly speaking it should be any calander year but there is some muddled case law on this issue.

Of course its unenforcable. Yes nosey/selfish/anxious/worried neighbours are the planning departments eyes and ears - but at the end of the day it would always be one persons word against anothers. Records, photographs etc. it still comes down to pne persons word against anothers.

There is also a question of how many nights can be used consecutively - I seem to remember something about a limit of two nights but I don't remember this very clearly and will have to look it up? I may be completely wrong on this one!

The biggest issue, and the one that's about to be looked at by the powers that be, is directly related to small woodland ownership as it has come to be in the U.K.!

Let's say a 100 acre wood goes on the market. In the past the previous owners were barely noticed by the woodland's neighbours. Yes they had a shed in the middle of the large wood and yes they camped there for 28 days -but in the middle of 100 acres who does that trouble? What happens if this wood is bought by a company who cut it up into twenty 5 acre woods and then sell the lot?

Suddenly the wood has twenty sheds in it. Because each plot is so small some are near the properties of the woodland's neighbours. What about camping. All of a sudden you've got twenty sets of people wanting to use their bit for 28 days of camping.(Obviously I'm playing Devil's Advocate a bit here!)

The situation dramatically changes for the neighbours - the peace and quiet they paid dearly for when purchasing their house has clearly been affected. Quite reasonably they may also be concerned at how much busier it might get in the future.

I appreciate some relatively reputable companies out there playing this profitable game get purchassers to sign convennants agreeing not to sub-divide their properties any more - but not all (And these sorts of covennants are expensive and difficult to enforce under many circumstances). What if the 20 owners of the new twenty 5 acre woods divide their woods into two, perhaps as a gift to their children, or following divorce, or because 5 acres is too much for them? Have you now got forty 2.5 acre woods each delivering 28 days of camping "rights" to 40 sets of people in that previously single 100 acre wood?

What if someone buys a wood and so they can camp in it for longer divides it into four parcels between themselves,their partner and their two grown up children, each bit on a seperate Land Registry document -should they as a family now get to camp in it for 4x28 =112 nights??

Of course I'm only referring to Leisure Camping in the above and not the different issue of camping accomodation for seasonal forestry workers.

Interestingly the reason the "28 day rule" is being considered is with regard to the ecological impact. Once neglected woods now being literally killed with love...

P.S. As I said I'm playing Devil's Advocate here and not making any comment about Austino's particular situation - just highlighting the problems with the "28 day rule" as it currently stands and why many believe it must change.

[northmetking]

To be fair, I would have thought that if people are respectful of their woodland (as I would expect owners to be) then a few days' quiet camping even in a couple of acres, shouldn't really impact on anyone else at all, surely?

How would you change things if you were given the opportunity to review the regulations, Stephen1?

[Stephen1]

Northmetking wrote; "How would you change things if you were given the opportunity to review the regulations, Stephen1?"

That's just mean - giving me enough rope to hang myself!

Well there are two main areas; impact on neighbours and ecological.

As for neighbours I have some sympathy, but not too much if I'm truly honest - you never want to see people upset or stressed if there's no need. That said it seems to me that it's mostly due to neighbours misunderstandings and anxieties of what "might" happen rather than what actually is happening, pure selfishness or fears about house prices. What would I change? I might look at setting a minimum area to qualify for the full permitted development rights as they currently stand (similar to the agricultural position). Areas below this threshold should perhaps only qualify pro rata.

In terms of Ecological issues. I would make a clear distinction in planning law between Ancient Woodland (whether a Planted Ancient Woodland Site or Ancient Semi-natural Woodland) and Secondary Woodland. I would exempt Secondary Woodland sites (the large majority in most areas) from the minimum area criteria I suggested above, and would increase the opportunities for leisure/ammenity use within them. I would allow non-commercial siting and non-residential occupation of caravans for considerably more than the current 28 nights. I would make planning for construction of sheds etc. asscociated with the supply of wood fuel much simpler i.e. a presumption that the right exists - with possibly some requirement that the size of the structures is appropriate to the level of production averaged over 5 years.

However on Ancient Woodland sites I would make the regulations as they currently pertain to Permitted Development subject to a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment. With quite rigourous curtailment of the standard permmited development rights as indicated by the E.I.A. results specific to that individual woodland.

I haven't justified why I have the oppinion outlined above - that would be a huge tedious essay of my own doubtful oppinion and dodgey spelling.

Obviously there would also be the grey area of whether a woodland was actually 'ancient' or not. Many woodlands are undisputably either ancient or secondary, but for a number the designation would be a matter of oppinion and very open to dispute. How would that best be resolved? Hard to answer as a presumption of benefit of the doubt in ether direction would be open to abuse...as much by over-zealous conservationists as others. (I'm aware of a least three woods where dormouse opened hazlenuts were introduced by well meaning 'conservationist/animal lovers' to prevent the woodland owner using warfarin to control squirrels - no doubt inspired by the "trade" in Great Crested Newts amongst well-meaning 'conservationists' to prevent the development of green-field sites in Cheshire.)

[austino]

Interesting subject huh! Most of this subject of 28 days is interpretation. The point is if your not exploiting a situation why should anyone worry, councils included. Legislation has to be there to protect from people chancing their arm with cheap housing plots etc, and i'm sure all of us would agree this is necessary. Now goverment has to try and make it possible to protect our woodlands but allow the mountain of new owners, like me, to have some rights of ownership to justify owning a wood. I wonder but if there was such a person as an average councilor whether on balance he would be happy or unhappy with an average woodland owner. I beleive the councilor would be happy except for the added workload brought to his desk by spurios claims from "nosey neighbours". I have a picture of goverment hierarchy sitting round a desk discussing this issue (last on the agenda). "Now then 7.2 Woodland camping policy.Right, lets give them 28 days camping, cos at the end of the day who knows and who cares how long they stay but we've got it as a back drop if necessary in case they try cheap accomodation. Yep agreed. But, maybe in addition we,ll add that forrestry workers can pretty much stay when they want. Yeah and how can we define that? I know, seasonal. I like that sounds woody and means nothing! Yes it does.Gloriosly vague but can,t be disputed it,s less than a year!".

Sorry for my inane ramblings but ahving looked deep and hard, this I reckon is what it comes down to.

Because of my neighbour hassles I guess I was looking for something in concrete to wave at them regarding staying in my woods. But my beleif is the legislation is woolly but enforcable if pushed. Maybe this was a very clever policy, maybe it was the only thing they could come up with(I have to say it's easy to mock but i certainly couldn't think of anything better).

I am very happy with the letter I replied to the council with. The 40 days my neighbour had observed my vehicle there did not represent 40 days camping. Afterall I have a coppicing mobile caravan which I stay in sometimes, I camp sometimes, I leave my vehicle parked and stay at a friends sometimes, and also my vehicle is a motorhome which when parked at the entrance is not in my woods which I stay in, sometimes. And best of all it's true.

I feel happy that venting my feelings and views and listening intently to all of yours through the forum that I am happy with the conclusion. I have done nothing and now realize I never had to. If your doing nothing wrong then don't be intimidated by people who want to cause problems. Finaly it's overwhelming how much support you get from woodland friends. Thanks to all!

[tracy]

So glad you are feeling better!