Last Chance For Better Access To Dartmoor!

As a local and regular user of Dartmoor for cycling, camping, hiking and other purposes I’m pretty unimpressed to see most of these amendments. Another gem is that under the proposals you can’t stay overnight in a motorised vehicle, so stealth van camping will supposedly be illegal. With that being said there are some sensible suggestions in there, like not allowing low-flying drones over livestock and no raves – fair enough really.

Anyway, even if it does get approved, I can’t see how the NPR and Dartmoor Authorities will police some of them. It’s such a vast swathe of land they’re legislating in that it can’t possibly be enforceable. I also feel for the poor Rangers that are going to be made to enforce some of the stupider rules.

I’ve filled in the survey already – let’s see if common sense prevails!

As always unfortunately.

I should add, the title of this article is misleading. There is little chance of better access as a result of this process. Only a reduction in access and more draconian enforcement of it is on the cards.

not that I actually expect anything on the ground to change.

I don’t get how there’s an opinion that cyclists will be faced with less access to Dartmoor – we’re already excluded from the access areas other than on applicable rights of way. They’re not suggesting winding that back in any further. But, I do welcome that Cycling UK are seeking the discontinuation of the current bylaw in that respect. As an actual resident of said park, and do know Simon Lee reasonably well (Ranger team manager) as he pops by our local quite often, I’d say that what they’re trying to do (notwithstanding lumping cycling in with motorised restrictions) is well meaning – they’ve experienced an pretty awful past 2 summers with lots of people simply taking the pi$$ – turning up and camping wherever they want (popular misconception that you can wild camp anywhere, but has always been specific zones), leaving heaps of refuse (including human), letting rampant dogs scare terrorise wildlife and livestock. The ‘campsite’ at Bellever pretty much ended up being a summer long freeparty… They actually employed security staff to go around and attempt to reduce the impact of antisocial camping by trying to enforce the restrictions already in place. The wild camping guidelines have always been that you should be camping out of sight of the roads and other properties and carrying in whatever you need – no fires, etc, etc – leave no impact. 10 man tents, generators, lighting and sound systems kinda flies in the face of that. They’re trying to protect the environment and not see it destroyed by the inconsiderate actions of some. For the most part, they’re simply rewording in essence what is in the bylaws already to make them harder to misinterperate (twist) and easier to enforce (if needed). The wild camping area is shrinking under the proposal, it’s taking out strips bordering roads and a few sensitive areas – it’s gettign a few % smaller. Also find it slightly amusing that Hannah’s piece picks up on the hammocks and not attaching stuff to trees – if you’ve been up there much you’ll know that trees are a bit of a rare thing, especially in the permitted wild camp areas. They’re trying to protect a sensitive environment for us all to enjoy. Maybe they’re getting some of it wrong in the eyes of some, but you have to take a look at it from the Park’s and local residents side of things too, and see the compromise they’re trying to achieve.

I don’t get how there’s an opinion that cyclists will be faced with less access to Dartmoor – we’re already excluded from the access areas other than on applicable rights of way.

as an example, the old railway from burrator to princetown? widely advertised and heavily used a cycle route, even signposted as such from memory.

currently classified as a permissive footpath. £500 fine for riding on it under the new rules.

rattlebrook railway up to great links tor etc. unclassified.

£500 fine for riding on it under the new rules.

with regard to the hammock thing. the only area I can think of on the map that is in the permitted zone and in the trees is in lustleigh cleave.

but why specifically exclude hammocks? i’m sure it’s possible to put up a hammock without damaging a tree.

have a law about damaging trees if you need to protect trees.

at Jam Bo – my point is that we were never meant to ride those areas under the current/previous rules (and in fact for open access land in general…), and if you’ve not had a word from a ranger as they’ve caught you poaching in that North western part particularly, then you’ve been lucky. I also didn’t say that they’d got it right, but pointing out that a lot of incidents have lead to this point – very likely including cyclists too (I also know land managers for National and Woodlands trust areas locally that have had big problems with riders over the last 18 months building trails through SSSI and Ancient Woodland areas, ignoring signs, cutting fences (yes, really), then putting the ride and segments on Strava then more and more riders coming in. The Burrator-Princetown route is an interesting one for sure – DNP themselves actively promote it as a cycle route – so given that they’re the land manager for the the land the route goes through, you’d assume that they have given it permissive status themselves…? Dunno. Any way – I didn’t say they have it right (and I agree £500 fine is extreme), more that its useful to look at it from the other side too to gain a level of understanding to why it’s happened. It’s good that Cycling UK are trying to get us better access, no doubt at all, not arguing against it in the slightest.

The Burrator-Princetown route is an interesting one for sure – DNP themselves actively promote it as a cycle route – so given that they’re the land manager for the the land the route goes through, you’d assume that they have given it permissive status themselves…?

i was suprised when I checked the map earlier but on devon.cc definitive rights of way map there is nothing recorded, and on OS25k its marked as a permissive footpath.

i was suprised when I checked the map earlier but on devon.cc definitive rights of way map there is nothing recorded, and on OS25k its marked as a permissive footpath.

Gonna ask Simon about that one when I see him next

I’ve written in.

Key point for me is that cycling is more restricted and subject to greater penalties in the National Park than outside it, while walking, horseriding and camping are all, before and after the proposed changes, allowed freer access in the National Park than outside. I think it’s stating the bleeding obvious that behaviour like cutting fences is wrong, but it’s only of tangential relevance. On cycling their response to the bad behaviour of a few is a closed minded and mean-spirited approach which hits overwhelmingly the responsible majority. I don’t think the same is true at all for walkers and campers, for whom a clear effort is evident to maintain a spirit of open access, with a clamping down only on specific damaging behaviour.

* 3. BYELAW 4 VEHICLES
No person shall without reasonable excuse drive, ride or propel any mechanically propelled vehicle or any pedal propelled vehicle on any part of the Access Land other than on a highway where there is a right of way for that class of vehicle.

Do you agree with the amendments relating to the byelaws on the use of vehicles?

Yes

No

No opinion
Please provide the reason for your answer (optional)

– survey here, above is question 3. Get onto it then… if anyone has a legally smart reason for answers, please post up.

There are only a few unclassified tracks that are of any interest to a cyclist on the common land. They generally have good surfaces eg one prominent track is an old mine road. Otherwise the common land off the rights of way would only be of interest to the most determined and adventurous cyclist – the surfaces are simply not good riding. No harm is done by cycling on a track that is suitably surfaced.
Cyclists don’t have an implied right to be on a footpath and can be told to leave by a landowner’s representative. That should suffice here if it does in the rest of the UK and criminalising via trespass is out of proportion to the act. The classification of tracks is not always clear and shouldn’t need to be made so by landowners. Additional signposting would be to the detriment of the area.

https://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/about-us/who-we-are/byelaws-consultation