Public access to coastal areas...

[V8MoneyPit]

I'd be interested to hear peoples thoughts on the proposed legislation to open up private coastal land to the public. Sounds much like the 'right to roam' policy to me, but with more emphasis on forcing landowners to open up the land.

Most beaches in England and Wales are privately owned, but owners allow public access anyway. Many are owned by the Crown or the MOD. And many are owned by different parties. For example, the Crown might own up to the high tide mark and someoone else will own the rest.

As someone with some land (not coastal fortunately!), I would be horrified if I was forced to open it to hoards of people.

[Thrasher]

Can imagine the papers already :

Rambler falls of cliff - land owner prosecuted.

Rambler hit by shell - MOD prosecuted.

Rambler shot in grounds of <place> - land owner prosecuted.

Refinery death - HSE called in.

Port security compromised - ramblers claim no responsibility

 :twisted:

[datalas]

Port security compromised - ramblers claim no responsibility

 :twisted:

Don't you mean "Port security compromised - ramblers prosecute port authority" ?

[Andy 300tdi]

Don't have a problem with it so long as it's on

Navel gunnery/RAF bomb ranges on 'live firing' days only

[paul_humphreys]

Don't have a problem with it so long as it's on

Navel gunnery/RAF bomb ranges on 'live firing' days only

I was thinking mine field!!

Paul

[Andy 300tdi]

Don't have a problem with it so long as it's on

Navel gunnery/RAF bomb ranges on 'live firing' days only

I was thinking mine field!!

Paul

Plenty of those around the world that they could help with clearing whilst excersing their 'right to roam'

[3laner]

its absolute rubbish and a blatent attempt to nationalise any rural areas. how can they justify taking away our rights of way and giving the ramblers more????

[V8MoneyPit]

I was really coming from the direction of the land owners. They already have to maintain rights of way across their land by law. If a 'right to roam' approach is taken, does the whole land have to be kept accessible? And are they likely to get prosecuted if it becomes impassable for the majority of it?

And what about impact on wildlife and vegitation if people are allowed to roam across it all? At least well defined rights of way tend, on the whole, to keep people together and off the rest of the land.

I have little problem with footpaths and other RoW. It's when whole chunks of land are having to be 'given up' to the general public to tramp across.

[littlepow]

You think thats daft. There are some live fire ranges, that have public footpaths through them. :shock:
Idiot rambles still insist on access even when the red flag is up and firing is taking place. Some wont even stop to wait for a safe passage!  :roll:

[Lord Shagg-Pyle]

A ridiculous idea. What about all the nature reserves, sites of special scientific interest, and all the fragile historical sites? Crazy.
I threatned to nick a load of bobble hats a few years ago as they were stomping right through a nature reserve disturbing little terns that were nesting.
What about the potential for erosion of sea defences?
Sorry, but this is just another foolish idea thought up by seat polishers in Whitehall and by people who have no idea about the implications.

[richo]

We could start a new sport sending in the ramblers on live firing sites and betting on the ones that make it across

[Lord Shagg-Pyle]

You think thats daft. There are some live fire ranges, that have public footpaths through them. :shock:
Idiot rambles still insist on access even when the red flag is up and firing is taking place. Some wont even stop to wait for a safe passage!  :roll:

Is that such a bad thing? :D