Somerset's Iron Curtain.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 тра 2024
- A break this week from explores and stories, and a week off big edits for us. Instead we took a short walk along Somerset's Iron Curtain. We have known about this for some time and been a tad disappointed an agreement hasn't been reached with previously accessed land made available to the public. We also appreciate there are always two sides. What is the solution?
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all.
Patreon and members for additional behind the scenes content:
/ paulandrebeccawhitewick
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @pwhitewick
Sources and corrections.
Credit: Maps: Google Maps
Right to Roam: www.righttoroam.org.uk/
Save our Space: www.sosfrome.org.uk/
Press Reader: www.pressreader.com/uk/the-ma...
Another viewpoint, over to the man himself: • Farmer builds 300ft fe...
Corrections and additions:
1. See pinned comment regarding ownership - Розваги
Comment added from Nick Lea which adds more context. There seems to be conflicting information as to whether the council owned the land or simple had the opportunity to nominate this land as an asset of community value (As most of the sources are newspapers!). I don't think this changes much about the essence of the point, but as Nick has pointed out, its worth noting the detail. See comment here:
"You are .... mistaken about the land being sold for £100k as a community asset (agreed but I suggested they had raised "100k, but this was refused - PW). The Localism Act 2011 created something called an "Asset of Community Value". What this means is that a community can ask the local county council to nominate a piece of land or property as an "Asset of Community Value" for the next five years.
If the council agree to do this then the building or land is added to the list of community assets for a period of five years. If the owner decides to sell a property on the list, they must tell the council. If a community group wants to buy it, they can invoke their Community Right to Bid. This pauses the sale for six months to give them time to raise funds and submit a bid. The community group does not have the right to buy the asset. At the end of the six month period, the owner can sell the asset to whoever they wish and at any price.
Again, from the Press Reader reference you gave it says that "The group attempted to register the open pasture as a community asset, which also failed" So, it would appear that the local county council turned down their application and the land was then sold at auction after the previous owner died."
Thanks again for Nick for clarification. To my mind this doesn't change the essence of the story. A. The refusal to allow the green space and B. the monumental fence.
I like the fence. It protects me from objectionable land owners from shouting trespass at me and is good for my health and safety. We know a good laugh at idiotic things is good for you.
@@Gribbo9999 This is the best reply to a comment I've read all year . I salute you
@@Gribbo9999 'Idiotic things' as you state. Interesting one. Do you own private land which previously you were happy for the public to access? I'm guessing not. Are you aware the landowners are legally obligated to safely remove all rubbish dumped on their land all at their own expense. Within a specified time limit too (otherwise there's a fine). Do you know what? I'd rather fence everything off from the general public, because the general public cannot (and do not) respect the land. They let their dogs sh*t everywhere, drop tissues everywhere, do not respect breeding season restrictions, leave used BBQ trays and the ubiquitous beer bottles everywhere. Tampons, condoms you name it. The great British public are scumbags. Pikeys also dump van loads of crap, which I have to pay to clear up and safely dispose of. Oh, and ladies.... used tampons are classed as HAZMAT, which costs a lot more to safely dispose of once discarded (thanks for that). So there you go. Now do you understand why I 'robustly' fence off my private land? Because the public don’t respect it.
If the council didn't sell it for the most that they could get,I suppose voters could say that they didn't realise the maximum value for the property and have another argument on their hands?
The land owner is quite right. Dog owners toileting animals all over the place. Keep the fence and keep those sorts of people away.
If they want to toilet animals they should do it on their own property.
It is always tragic when you can't tell if something is incompetence or corruption.
I wouldn't rule out just plain malice either.
yeah, spite
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
@vincentwalker6029, this saying keeps going around. It sort of makes sense on the surface.. Maybe I misunderstand something..
Could you explain why this phrase is applicable in this situation from your point of view? I mean, how is 'stupid' a better assumption than 'malicious' in this situation?
I get it from the 'meta' POV, in general it's better to have faith in people's goodness, sometimes it's the clutch that saves the day and helps the social fabric to function
It's just... this situation is not general and not functional
@@justb4116 it's more likely whoever made the decision made no effort (or it didn't occur to them) to actually assess how much they should accept or the effect it would have on the community, call it obliviousness which is a cousin to stupidity.
As a scotsman living in England I find the limitations on access to the countryside very frustrating. Every time I wild camp I'm always aware of being moved on which makes camping a 'risk' instead of something enjoyable. Scotland has got it right. The countryside should be for everyone imho
Agreed, just need make those 'campers' aware the countryside is for everyone to enjoy but not treat as somewhere to leave their Sh⛔︎t behind them, because it's too much effort to take it home with them
@@richardz9321 yes unfortunately there are different classes of campers. Stealth & Wild Campers follow principles of leave no trace. Unfortunately some don't understand or follow those rules. But with every activity you have responsible people and those not so much. Personally I pick up all rubbish even if it's not mine. (not a do gooder)
@@greyhikes5236 Think it began after Covid, suddenly people who probably belong on the Costas with someone to pick up after them, suddenly found their only prospect of a holiday consisted of a tent off Argos, we certainly saw them on normally nice campsites, they probably were as dirty as the Tarmac enthusiasts
@@richardz9321 🤣 True!
@@richardz9321 no offense, but when it comes to littering. english people are the worst for it. im not saying no scottish people litter, or all english people litter. but there is definitely a huge difference. you can even look at so called "litter maps" online and itl back me up here.
every year my area gets flooded with english tourists, an they just throw their rubbish all over the place. its incredibly annoying and uncivilized.
If nothing else at least Mr Brunt's name conveniently rhymes with what no doubt a lot of people already call him.
Omg we had a middle school math teacher called Mr Brunt and none of us thought of the fact that that rhymed with cunt!? 🤦 We could have had such giggles!
"Brunt" and "Nag" seem like those self describing names that you get in characters from a Mervyn Peake or a Dickens novel.
Liquidator Brunt of the Ferengi Commerce Authority (or just “Brunt”) was a character on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. A slimy, corrupt bureaucrat who put his own capitalistic greed ahead of the public good, even by Ferengi standards.
@@DissociatedWomenIncorporated Thanks! I spent most of the video trying to remember that character's title.
Mr Brunt or something that rhymes with Brunt
Aptronyms
Aptronyms
There is a wider economic issue to consider here: ten years ago there was a lot in the news about councils being encouraged to sell assets to make up for funding cuts. They were facing a lot of cutbacks and were trying to figure out how to maintain their services on drastically-reduced budgets.
Lmao maybe they could stop spending so much on useless projects all the time then. The state has no interest in doing better because when they do worse they get rewarded with more money.
@@LlibertarianGalt You highlight some significant flaws in the system and I broadly agree with you, but they don't really serve as a counterpoint to the problems imposed on local councils by the (frankly unnecessary) austerity measures which were being taken at the time.
i wonder why that is...
@@samw1501 cant really say being trillions in debt from jumping into the Iraq and Afghanistan were unnecessary austerity measures, the government didnt just drag us into a war, spent all of the public money in the war and mismanaging other projects, bailing banks out, then left notes laughing at the fact the money was all gone. On top of that local authorities and the nhs didnt manage their money and wildly overspent across the board pretty much putting every trust and local council into huge cutbacks and budget restraints. They were hugely necessary and should have been put in place years before they actually were, instead a bunch of grown people leaving debt and no jobs for younger people, leaving war criminals to make millions per year public speaking.
@eddyronbinson2466 I mean, sure, but the whole thing was part of Cameron's "Big Society" initiative. The austerity methods which led to the subject of this video were a clear turning point that led to a steady decline in living standards, which started at a very clear point (2010) and has continued steadily to worsen. It would be awfully strange to blame a government that has not been in power in over a decade for that.
A local wood used by walkers since time immorial near me was sold and the new owner fenced off the wood, locals wouldn't tolerate it and destroyed the running fence.
That's the only correct way to handle this kind of situation
@@xmurisfurderx property damage and trespassing are the correct way to deal with the situation of someone owning some land?
Okay cool, so I don't like that your house has walls, I'm going to come and tear them down so that your home is open to the public as I believe it should be. Cool?
@@blindmown The freedom to use the countryside is a natural right that belongs to the people who live there and are invested in its continuation.
@@blindmownthe person you answered to uses their house. The property owner of this piece of land apparently doesn't.
That's the difference. If he would use it for something then people wouldn't have a problem. But not letting people use an unused piece of land?
@@Jehty21 That's entirely irrelevant - personal property is personal property, and when someone has nice things the fact that you think you're entitled to decide to decide what they're used for does not change that. If a man owns a piece of land it's up to him to do with it as he sees fit. If he wants to own some woodland just to go there once every ten years and take a photo of a bird that's fine - it's his property. if he wants to buy an entire woods so his kids can build a den in it in the school holidays, that's fine too. If he wants to buy it now to secure ownership with an eye to making a nature trail when he retires in thirty years, it's cool. He could even buy it just for bragging rights or with the intent to resell it in a few decades for 100x the price if he'd like to.
Or let's come at it from the other direction:
I've got a crate of huge great big shrimps in my freezer that we're having for dinner on Saturday. Just because you think they look tasty and would like to have them for yourself, and I've purchased them but not yet cooked them, that doesn't mean you're allowed to get them out of my freezer and take them home to eat.
There's a Super 7 in my garage that only see's the light of day on a handful of dry weekends in the summer. Just because you think it looks fun to drive and you'd like to have a go in it doesn't mean I have to push it to the end of my drive and leave the key in it so as it can be a "community asset to be enjoyed by everyone".
You see where I'm going with this? There's no law stopping you from buying your own woodland, you made the decision not to. There's no law stopping you from freely using any of the thousands of publicly owned or freely available woodlands in the UK either. Again, your sense of entitlement to other people's nice things does not change the fact that they belong to _other people_ - no matter how much you'd like to have them for yourself.
I grew up with this field 5 mins walk form my house. Fondly nick named ' the bull field'. We would sledge in the snow , paddle in the stream at the bottom, pick blackberries and sloe berries and climb trees. It is 3 fields connected and such a shame my daughter couldn't get the same experience. The fields are not used at all. I always walk past the bottom entrance which has boulders and fencing blocking access, and wish it could be used to its full potential once again.
Blame your council for selling it .... would you like someone running around your land ... if there's an accident who would be liable the owner 😊
@@philbaker4155Cool excuse for blatant contempt against the public, people like you are what's to blame for this country going down hill. Always an excuse for people's bad behaviour. Can quite easily blame both the council and the individual for being greedy and letting their greed harm their local community. Who buys a patch of land to do nothing with it but fence it off? Clowns all around.
This is due to the legal liability. Blame the law and those who create it.
If anyone who gains access to that property hurts themselves the land owner faces the legal and compensation costs. The council also want to get rid of any property that could place their own budgets at risk.
Our politicians have created a legal framework that punishes the innocent and protects those that chose to put themselves at risk.
The two above are wrong. I'm going to go ahead and blame capitalism, and the guy after can blame socialism.
Then we just need a sermon spam and we've got the set.
@@philbaker4155Nobody should be liable besides the person who hurt themselves
'Dog-walkers', the bane of Landowners and Serial Killers everywhere 🤣
GOOD!
its all about the housing development, and has been for 10 years, and the story is slightly more complicated - Mendip District council didn't own the land in the first place, it was original owned by a person who died (who had let people use the field beyond the footpath) it was sold privately to the current owner - the 100k was raised and offered to the current owner to buy part of the land - he refused, The only involvement Frome town council had was the then Town Clerk acted as an intermediary between the group offering to buy for £100k and the current owner
This is a pretty vital clarification. If accurate, I’d be on the landowners side.
Facts matter.
not quite, it's all about private housing developments, and the government mandating the selling off of council land specifically for that purpose. it's not about public housing, it's all about private investments.
@@johng.1703 In this case, how could the council sell off land that they did not own?
@@dave4728 it really does matter how long the council have been looking after the land, as adverse possession is a thing. in which case they could sell it off.
We had a situation where the council sold a recreation area for building residential, having cut down all the trees the land then sat empty. That council got voted out and the next council bought the land back .
Sounds like a Local Council. They barely know WHAT they are doing.
@@brianlopez8855 All councils but two in the UK are like that, you cannot miss it you see all around, wasted money everywhere yet they claim 'their broke' 😆🤣😂😂😆. I wonder people like myself who look at the finer details that point the out the problem in the room but they 'councils' are blind for a good reason.... next year they'll get the same or more of your money next year no matter what. Just like the TVL/BBC scummy gits!
At 4 times the price no doubt
@@georgejohnson7591 Or more They like land or property that's 'gifted' to them to make the most profit to line their own pockets more deeper. The number of council management or councillors that vested interests (private businesses) in so called 'open' contracts to bided on, is shocking. Other local or otherwise companies will bid a fair price often much cheaper & quicker but will never get it why? It nearly always goes to... the preferred bidder not the fair market priced contractor which normally every knows or later finds out it was owned or had high number the same councillors/council employees share holders content. Something they don't advertise 🤬🤬🤬🤬
Yes we had something similar, Tory council sold off playing field with mature willow trees to property developers, land cleared. Developers went bust in 2008 crash, Torys voted out, land tuned into small woodland walk with lots on new trees. Unfortunately the cuckoo's that used to visit mature trees never returned 😢
In Denbighshire there was a plot of land sold a few decades back. It was used occasionally for sheep and always had signs up informing people using the footpath to put dogs on leads. But, as usual, entitled dog owners let their creatures run rampant and worry the sheep. End result? The landowner put a wooden fence on both sides of the footpath to stop dogs getting into the field.
Entitled people spoil it for everyone.
Unfortunately it's illegal to block a public footpath (just ask Nicholas Van Hoogstraten) that's why this guy ended up fencing in the path.....
As usual? Not the usual thing where I live where people are respectful
I'm afraid this is so true of so many dog owners who really don't care what Fido does as they stroll along letting him do what he wants without a lead on where he should have. After seeing a friends dog get mauled I'm afraid it's the main reason I won't get another dog.
Was there a prior connection between the person who bought the land and the council? It wouldn't be unheard of.
Same round here.. Sheffield. Locals raised £80k to buy land.. not council owned.. and were outbid. The new owner put sheep on, and the locals take their dogs there.. spoke to a woman wearing slippers, she took her dog there for a sh!t then got properly dressed and went walking round the wood. They accused him of trying to poison his own sheep (blue mineral supplement in the water), called the RSPCA when a fox got a lamb, break his fences, call him 'that property.capitalist' etc. They have no idea. None, farming is sooo hard. They complain when food prices go up, well food has been way too cheap for decades
I used to live on my uncle's farm, which had several footpaths. One cut off a corner of a field, and the others were along the hedgerows at the end of the fields. The locals used them as an entrance and exit to access the fields for recreation purposes, which my uncle tolerated. They never went near the farm buildings, so everyone was happy, and in some very hot summers we would have sunbathers laying on the hill slopes.
I've seen "dogs on leads" signs countless times too. And I've also seen countless numpties ignoring such signs.
Completely agree. Farmer has ever right to protect his land from an army of dog walkers crapping on HIS LAND whilst claiming benefits living in the housing association redrow dump they live in next door to the house filled with Eastern Europeans working in some sausage factory.
England is a dump, swimming in debt with 70% of its females on gear….aka steroids…..aka birth control pills
yeah, if you think people will side with you over dogs having fun, good luck with that Ebeneezer.
Yes, I've seen them in nature reserves during breeding periods as well. Dogs fetch everything, no matter how 'good', and their owners can't be fast enough to prevent them.
@@SanityTV_Last_Sane_Man_Alive you do understand that loose dogs killing sheep, or terrorizing them and causing them to miscarry their lambs is a common occurrence right? you absolutely should keep them on a lead if someone had a reason to pay to put a sign up
it`s arrogant dog owners that are the problem , self entitled prickks most of them!
Had a similar episode in Dorset, someone bought the field with a public footpath and decided they wanted to keep 3 or 4 cattle (which at least he did) and put a metre wide section through the middle with a fence either side. He then cleared a section of scrub on the edge near the road, which many weren't happy with. I printed some maps off for the parish council that showed it had always been part of the verge and clearly showed the extend of his field (old OS maps) - the land was left and now nature has claimed it back.
Where was this?
Stalbridge?
I always find these discussions interesting as it all comes down to what individual people think is acceptable to quantify as ownable and therefore the ability to make it "private". I don't think anyone would argue that if you work hard and buy a house with a garden that is owned buy you and so it is your private property, if you or your family has worked hard for years or generations in a family run business and are lucky enough to have brought or inherited a rural house with a large garden and maybe a few acers of paddocks most would also agree you have a right to your property being private. But as soon as it changes to farms that looking back in history most have been established by a small farmer doing well and purchasing or leasing neighbouring property when it has become available resulting in the larger farms and estates or people who have built successful business or inherited large amounts of wealth purchasing these farms and estates, there tends to be stronger opinions on the right of open access.
In this case it seem the first owner allowed the use of the land, didn't have the ability to or gave up stopping people trespassing, the new owner has different views or plans of use for the land looking at the imagery it is clearly cut for some reason most lightly for cattle feed. The last thing you want in silage or hay is dog muck and litter unfortunately not everyone is a consensus user of the countryside if the land was used as much as suggested it would also damage the yield of the crop (grass). I can understand why someone would fence it off, I have a friend who has a field that borders a housing estate who regularly has the barbed wire fence cut and damaged by people so they can access the field to ride motorbikes, play and access a river, so can understand why a fence of such structure may be felt to be necessary.
I'm a keen walker and am not against more open access but it has to be in the right places. I've worked in agriculture and rural business most of my life and have first hand experiences of the public putting themselves in danger as beautiful as the countryside is, it is also a working environment. One that sticks in my mind was a couple arriving in the farm yard screaming and shouting that they had been "chased by bulls" "they were trying to kill us" and "Animals that dangerous should be kept safe" they were in fact just a mix of young stock lively yes but no malice to them. When It was pointed out there was no public right of way in any of the fields in that area the response was "but its just grass" "you cant own the countryside" and rants about open access. It can be so frustrating at times unfortunately the good users of the countryside go unnoticed and leave no trace as we should but the bad damage it for everyone, I feel most of the time this is through lack of understanding rather than malicious.
Exactly, having worked on and around farmland most of my life footpaths are a absolute nightmare to farmers, any farm I've been on with a footpath has had trouble with trespassing from those who refuse to stick to the paths.
As an example one farmer got a torrent of abuse after removing a feild gate, renewing fencing along a footpath and around a field to graze cow's. Some people even walking up to the farm house to "ask" him "what he was doing" as if they had a say in it.
One man with the attitude "I have the right to go anywhere I like" who the farmer had confronted several times kept climbing over the fence where the gate used to be and walking across the field, sunbathing etc. Making it hard to put cattle in the feild.
When a girl at the stables recognised him the farmer found the man's house, so he and 2 others (there as witnesses not to intimate) climbed over the man's fence and went for a snooze on the garden furniture in his back garden. Oddly the man took a completely different view to the farmers right to "go when he liked".
Why is it so uncommon to find a rich person doing something good with their money, but so common to find them throwing money away just to be a d bag for no reason?
@@bigbadtree I've also found the opposite where farmers start shouting at someone who's clearly accidentally taken a wrong turn, when they have chosen not to clearly mark where the path goes.
It's very easy to accidentally end up in the wrong field or the wrong side of a boundary, but lots of landowners don't get footpath signs erected which doesn't help.
If someone is say deliberately walking through crops or is letting their dog terrorise animals, then obviously the farmer should say something. However, if they have likely made a mistake (like walk through a different part of the farm to the right of way) then they could politely give them directions and then ensure clearer signage for future walkers.
It's got to be a two way contract between landowners and the general public. The general public should respect the land and the landowners should make it easy for them to do so - both parties should be polite and civil in the event of genuine mistakes and even when there is a more serious transgression then there is no need to get aggressive.
That would be fine if the people that owned most of the land were simply hard working people who wanted to enjoy a few peaceful acres. A lot of it is owned by foreign parties, also simple hardworking people can't afford to own land or a house in most of the western world as wealth is just getting more and more concentrated. And this concentration of wealth is a large part of the reason why most of the population are wage slaves who can't even dream about owning land and can't even enjoy a walk through nature because of this human invention called property.
We have a piece of land with a Public right of way running across it. Had trouble from dog walkers with bags of faeces & kids on stolen motor bikes, Until we introduced our Breeding Ram. Strange how nobody now strays from the path
if they had bags, that means they were picking up after their dogs... you are just whiney and evil arent you? Go complain that the kids were in school next genius.
It's sad that the minority spoil it for the rest of us! Glad you were able to find a reasonable solution.
Breedin time...
Yes this is often the problem. Good, well intentioned people often can't even conceive of the sort of selfish, uncaring people that exist. As they can't even imagine such people, when landowners try and counter them, they imagine them to be the villains. But the world is rarely so black and white!
Unfortunately the truth is often lost in a lot of these. We can come back to the fact that, should someone get injured on the land, say their foot went in a rut and they sprained their ankle, putting them out of work for a few months. Then the landowner could be held responsible for not maintaining a safe environment. Similar, albeit prettier, fencing solutions have gone up around my locality, restricting dogs and their walkers to narrow strips of land through fields. Not only is it a tragedy for walkers, it's a tragedy for wildlife. Unfortunately the law is quite clear, landowners are responsible for the well-being of people on their land, even if they are trespassing. Until we get legislation protecting landowners from the absurdity of being responsible for someone else's actions, we can expect more landowners to pursue this fencing in route.
In New Zealand back in the early 2000's the govt made land owners liable for injuries to members of the public on thier land weather or not the land owner knew the injured person(eg hunter) or was trespasssing. The beauraucrats were not choosy, they wanted a test case and slammed the farmer concerned. ( Complicating matters, the offender was a minor, and they and thier guardian had been TOLD TO LEAVE, they didnot got injured and the rest is history.) The conviction sent shock waves though the land owners comunity as the penalties in law would mean bankruptcy for most. The gates were slammed shut nation wide as a result and stayed shut until there was a law change removing land owner liability.
Think it would cost Mr Brunt more than the price of the land if someone catches their eye on his health n safety fence!
To paraphrase Sam Seaborn in The West Wing:
"Money is going to be spent Mr Brunt. You can spend it now, or you can spend it later, but it will be cheaper to spend it now....."
I remember this case from when it first popped up. The amount of entitlement and hostility aimed at Mr. Brunt from the beginning was really quite stunning. I don’t take sides on this, but, remembering how a lot of the ramblers behaved it would not surprise me at all if some of them are pulling the fence downwards from the inside in order to create the grounds for complaint. I am not saying it isn’t subsidence, I am saying that if I discovered that it was vandalism I would be exactly 0% surprised, based on what I had learned before.
@@camberweller You misplaced an 'if' in that last sentence which changes the meaning of it, fyi
@@OutbackCatgirl - You are correct. Thank you for noting the typo. I have changed it.
The width of the path is fine.
I don't know what its like down there, but up here in the midlands, people only walk their dogs on a lead is when they are along a busy road. No care for the safety of others, only their own dog.
We have a lot of troubles here in Gloucestershire with dogs harassing sheep. People have no respect for farmers, wildlife or the countryside.
@@jimdavis8391or anyone they are not directly affiliated with really.
I fully understand land owners not wanting people on their land. It's a shame but there will always be people that don't care and ruin it for the majority.
I miss the UK from when I was a young kid back in the 80's, back then people used to mind their own business and didn't worry about what other people were doing
@@adrianharrison5208what could you do then that you can't do now that isn't illegal or effect someone else negatively?
I live on the Devon coast, it's the same here. Countless times I've seen a dog run up somewhere with no owners in sight, take a dump then run back. Or people who have a good look around before they pick up their dog's waste.
The same thing happened with local church land near me. They put up metal fencing around a green field. Apparently to prevent it being re-classified as a village green in the future. Shortly after there was a major grass fire, that the fire brigade could not access because of the fence.
It sure is a good job that firemen don't carry water to the seat of the fire in buckets anymore. Now they have hoses that squirt large volumes of water at high pressure over extremely far distances.
What a stupid pointless comment. When the local fire fighters had raised their concerns in the local news media at the time, I assume that they know their own business. Better than some keyboard dummy. @@UnitSe7en
Not very competant firemen. The jaws of life would have a fence like the one in the video down in 90 seconds.
As a footnote, when the fire happened they had just installed an unbroken metal palling fence on the sides accessible from the road. No doubt the fire brigade cut the fence at the time. Now there is a large gate installed, so now they will only have to cut the padlock.
@@UnitSe7en Rural fire brigades use water trucks not hydrants. The pressure is not the same. I don't know the size of this yard, but a few years back there was a grass fire in a neighbouring village and it was easily 0.5 km wide long band of flames. It was a hard thing for the local firefighters to contain and extinguish on a windy day with drought like conditions.
I can’t explain how weird it feels to see the small little town i live in shown in the first few seconds of a video
Questions questions.
- Are Animals grazed on the land at any time throughout the year?
- Cut for crop(s) of Hay?
- Could be great for Ground Nesting Birds eg Lapwings, Skylarks etc etc
I would be certain that the fence must also be set-back from the path by six inches each side... and thus is illegal because it is not. That it is protruding over the path is also a violation as well. That must be remedied immediately too.
I'm not familiar with the history here or the prior ownership or usage, but growing up from a rural background, rights of way across agricultural land is always a touchy subject for many.
If he did want to have his livestock on the land, no amount of signage will prevent the public from pushing the boundaries and taking the piss. In rural communities it's a regular occurrence for uncontrolled dogs to attack livestock and many dog owners, often having moved to those rural areas rather than being raised there (and so not being aware of expectations and risks), will fight till the cows come home the various excuses for their dogs being off the lead. It may well be only a handful of offenders that ruin it for many, but even a handful is too much when you see the injuries and devastation caused by uncontrolled dogs to livestock, or conversely the injuries inflicted from livestock towards dogs or people - I've seen several reports within the last year alone (one of them very local to me in Billingshurst, West Sussex) of walkers being trampled or killed by cows.
The complicated factor in this case appears to be the long standing public use of the land prior to his purchase of it regardless of whether it was ever officially permitted or just assumed, so for many they feel they have the right to continue and I can understand why they would, unfortunately with such a change of use I think people just need to adapt and accept it. Farmland has various risks which could very well cause injury and liability issues to a landowner, and any farmer should try to minimise such risks. If signage proves inadequate or ineffective (it's unclear to me at least whether this was tried here) then he may well feel like a fence is his only option though the choice of fence style certainly makes an impact. However, it certainly looks like it needs some upkeep to make it safe!
Paul I really think this needs a follow up video to clarify exactly what happened. So many people in the comments believe the council sold the land, despite numerous comments to the contrary and while you have posted clarifications most of those with the wrong impression will not have read them.
I think the only thing we can all agree on us that the current owner should fix tge leaning fence.
I agree. A follow-up... and maybe an interview would be great. For me there is still ambiguity as to what happened. I have sources that contradict each other. That said... it doesn't change the essence of the point.
@@pwhitewick Yes, an interview or at least feedback from Mr Brunt would be good. From what has been reported it seems the fence is to keep badly behaved people away from the fields. It looks like some of those people have attempted to pull the fence down, Mr Brunt may not be aware of the need for repair, given that he may not live in the area or visit that often. It also seems that the original owner's executors sold the land, as executors, and in the absence of any direction in the Will, they are obliged to get the highest amount from the sale. I agree the fence is an eyesore but if the intrusions by trail bike riders are true then it is probably the only fence type that would deter them.
@barrieshepherd7694 agreed in all points. The council did have thw opportunity however to set thwbland aside as a community asset. This would have continued the prior 2 decades of use as a recreation area. I feel there is no real emphasis on this at the moment. Everything is set ready for development with no consideration for our inherent need of.... being outside.
Similar to Scotland, here in Sweden we have Allmensrätten - the right to roam, pretty much everywhere even on privately owned property. Owners cannot fence off nature - the people have the right of access to the land.
I can well imagine the rhyme based nickname the locals might have for Mr Brunt!
Reminds me a bit of the German farmer who once fenced off a stip in a football field (the strip actually belonged to him) to assure acces to his fields for his tractors. The football field wasn't useable any more. Some people just want to see the world burn.
Good video. Sometimes it needs to solve such things is such a video to create a public outcry. I wish Frome all the best!
Now that's a mad story
I can at least understand if it's a farmer doing something useful like producing food.
Grass looks managed. Could be cut for silage, feeding cattle etc. So food. Dog poo is a big issue in this case due to diseases and spoiling the feed.
Quite often people don't pick up.
Fence keeps people and the dogs on track, but still some what over the top, and quite a liability.
@@peterhoulihan9766 Here in Germany, there is enough food production. A little less wouldn't hurt anyone. No one is starving.
The land does look cultivated and not neglected, I’d assume it’s been cut for silage at some time. I assume the general public would gag at the idea of feeding dog faeces to cows but wouldn’t connect their actions to the negligence of not controlling dogs or picking up faeces with common farming practices they are no longer aware of. It’s an education piece.
Seen loads of dogs off leads in areas that say dogs must be kept on leads. Pointed this out to the dog owners only to have abuse and threats.
Does anyone remember swimming in Vobster quarry in the 70's and 80's, when it was all fenced off and not publicly accessible? LOL.
I used to love going there, water so soft and clear.
It's called Vobster quay now and seems to be a great example of re-purposing assets.
My local community high school had converted to an academy in 2011, and had 6+ft spiked fences exactly the same as this erected around the whole proximity. They said it was to keep individuals out of the grounds rather than keeping us pupils within it. Ironically the school went completely downhill to the point where ex-staff had taken the school to court and won their settlements. All it done was make the supposed 'teaching' environment feel like a prison, and as for the spiked fence, all it done was cause serious injury to pupils who inevitably chose to climb it.
All new schools look like prisons now.
Academies are all land grabs for protected public lands
Im sure he wanted to create a maze but at the end the cost production was cheaper so he went with straight path. 8/10 for effort
Now that would have been sooooo much more fun, right?
You Brits should consider a Nordic style Public Law
"Allemansratten gives a person the right to access, walk, cycle, ride, ski, and camp on any land-with the exception of private gardens, the immediate vicinity of a dwelling house and land under cultivation. Restrictions apply for nature reserves and other protected areas." (Wikipedia)
You can ask Santa for more info when he comes by 🎅
Scotland has something similar. From what I understand Northern Ireland is even worse than England/Wales.
The UK is a bit weird in having 3 totally different legal systems in one 'country'
That's what Scotland has.
We do have "right to roam" areas - and this, arguably, should have been one of them - where the public can walk at will; the snag is, you can't allow farm animals to graze on such land as there are far too many irresponsible people who allow their dogs to run freely and worry the cattle ("he's only playing!"), or who drop litter, leave gates open, etc. etc. I
@@AnnabelSmyth Not just that Dog faeces can leave worms in the soil which the cattle can catch when grazing.
Skalet66a; that wouldn't work out so well for most of the UK because it's so heavily cultivated. This field would still be a non access area, due to cultivation.
After finding this feature on Google Maps I find it hard to see what the fuss is about as this path, very ugly as it is, doesn’t lead anywhere.
It is an undisputed fact that all roads (and paths) lead to Rome
@MartinE63 in this case this path leads to Frome!
It's tough, because dog owners - especially in recent times - have become very entitled and less respectful of others. A lot of farmers and land owners are at their wits end because of it. It's not just farm land - my local park has huge explicit signs up everywhere saying NO DOGS ALLOWED and you still see people letting their fur babies run around off lead, crapping everywhere (which never gets picked up).
If the land has been legally purchased then the private owner is allowed to do this. There's not really much to debate in that sense.
Other than the people are constantly being pissed on by wealthy land owners across the uk, regardless of the users being dog owners or not, we have too much exclusivity in this country which is to the benefit of the wealthy.
I've seen dog owners frequently letting their dogs off the lead in a fragile and rare habitat that includes ground nesting birds. Signs explain the sensitivity and that just because dogs don't necessarily kill, the frequent stress of dog after roving dog still has an impact. Most dog owners completely ignore this, apparently thinking if they occasionally call after their dog but allow it to 80% ignore them making long and frequent forays into the protected area, that's somehow a substitute for properly respecting the sign.
In another more sensitive part light military use, part nature place with even clearer military signs I actually politely confronted someone allowing their dog completely free reign that was going well beyond the guidance of the signs. I was told if I wanted to respect the reserve that was up to me, as if such things could work on a purely opt-in basis!
I have nothing against dogs per se, but LOATHE such attitudes. Nevertheless I don't see this has much to do with this particular piece of land or video!
Proverbial red rag: Entitled dog owner letting fur baby go and "play"(actually terrify) with calves and the idiots wonder why the cows charge the dog threatening their calf. THEN the idiot picks the dog up to "protect" it and the cow goes THROUGH them trying to drive the dog away. Cattle are PREY species, dogs are PREDATOR species.
hi paul.i enjoy your pieces and know that the luxulyan tramway viaduct and nearby enormous winding gear for an inclined plane is just your kind of thing. i was astounded when shown the remains in cornwall which were part of a coast to coast transport system, trust me you will love it. regards phil
Nadolig Llawen 🏴 both! Highlighting the malaise that's blighting our countryside! 👌
"Get orf me land" 😂
I can even here it with the accent "Ged oorfff me larrnd!"
As an American I'm kind of jealous that right-to-roam is a thing at all. I live in Santa Barbara County, which is about 2.3x the size of Somerset, and there are huge areas that you can't get to at all. I like flying my drone in the countryside but there are places you can't get within several miles of on public roads and trails - it's all locked away behind ranch gates on private roads. That said, we do have over 300 square miles of protected wilderness area where no development is allowed at all.
Nothing to be jealous of here, we have no real wilderness like you in America. Britain is getting to resemble a giant gulag.
That's the flip side of the argument isn't it. You may have no right to roam and trespassing is a crime, but you also have genuine publicly owned wilderness full of nature. Even our "National Parks" are all privately owned farmland.
We don't have a right to roam in England but we are unlikely to be shot for trespassing like my wife warned me of in Texas. We do have a massive network of public footpaths, though, and in some areas there are lots of other paths as well that are widely used and can be seen on the Footpath app and the Strava app
@@myotherchannel2729 It's mainly because in the US if someone hurts themselves on your land they can sue you, unless they are trespassing. Which is why the US is so obsessed with putting up fenses and no trespassing signs everywhere. That kind of mentality is slowly working it's way over to the UK as people get quicker to sue.
@@elitemook4234 No, I wasn't talking about places with signs. She was very worried that I had gone down what looked a bit like a footpath to me (behind some houses). She felt that if you went on land that you weren't sure you had a right to be on, someone was liable to shoot you, I don't know whether from paranoia or from an obsessive sense of an American's land being his um... castle.
that was very interesting and not something i'd normaly watch. Very well put together. good work earned a sub from me!
This happens up and down the country. There's one close to me in South Yorkshire. A community group gets together, buys up some land which the local authority wanted to develop or sell for whatever use, then realises they now have legal obligations, and potential liabilities, to anyone using that land. They don't have the money to maintain it, the volunteers who set up the group don't have the time or the manpower to clear out any dangerous plants or flytipped debris, and if a child is harmed there, it'd be their liability.
So they fence it off and the community has lost the land.
"♫ Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies above
Don't fence me in
Let me ride through the wide open country that I love
Don't fence me in
Let me be by myself in the evenin' breeze
And listen to the murmur of the cottonwood trees
Send me off forever but I ask you please
Don't fence me in ♫" Cole Porter and Robert Fletcher.
Funny, shit like that really doesn't go on that much in Scotland.
@@colmcgillveray1010 There are too many busy-body socialist types who go around England looking for stuff to complain about and who then contact land/business owners and tell them how they have made something dangerous and that they are liable and all that. Odds are if a child got hurt playing in brambles, no one in their right mind would hold the landowners accountable; but there is a culture of fear these days, not helped by the fact that our police force does go against all common sense and harass people for nonsense and 'thought crimes'.
Thankfully these overly-concerned socialist types only live in wealthy areas surviving off daddy's money, so if you go to working areas, or places like rural Scotland; you can still find public land and the reign of common sense.
@@colmcgillveray1010 Dont need fences there - the clouds of wild midge is good enough
That's literally not what happened here.. are you deaf?
im a beef farmer in the UK and honestly the land owner is in the right. i cant tell you how often I've had to tell people to respect my land, don't let dogs off lead. clean up after your dog. dont leave gates open ect. i cant actually put my cattle in that field because every time without fail the public wont shut a gate and they will be out in the road. the public are just disgusting cretins most of the time. and more and more farmers in my area are putting up fences like that to keep people on the path
Too damn right. It also amazes me how large the segment of society (usually through boredom) is that will take every opportunity to continually antagonise somebody that wants to be left alone. (My case is a private nature reserve with a footpath).
I used to go walking round Hadrian's Wall occasionally. I was hindered by little tricks like a "Beware of the bull" sign at the entrance to a field which the public right of way ran through, a water trough that could have been placed anywhere on the perimeter of an area of pasture but had been located right next to a stile to ensure that walkers would have to wade through a sea of mud and a 'public footpath' fingerpost that had been pulled out of the ground and dumped. It had been embedded in concrete, so it could only have been ripped up using machinery.
You people are happy to be massively subsidised by the urban majority (or "disgusting cretins", as you term us). You don't pay the actual cost of having utilities, post, etc. delivered to remote rural areas. Any public transport you get has to be subsidised. You've now got a taxpayer-funded Rural Housing Enabling scheme. You drive into towns and use the amenities paid for by the people who live there. But you don't want the "townies" who bankroll you setting foot in the countryside.
you got mad because i said people who don't respect the country side are disgusting cretins and they are! the main reason the country side looks as nice as it does is because farmers have to clean up after the public @@patrickray2757
Related solely to the title - In California, student geologists discovered 3 minor faults whilst practicing field work or whatever. They're officially named My Fault, Your Fault, and The Dean's Fault.
The motto of the town of New Madrid, Missouri is " It's our fault!" The town gave its name to the fault line that caused the earthquake of 1812 that rang bells in Virginia, liquefied ground in spots for hundreds of miles, and even set the Mississippi flowing backwards for a few days.
Lol thanks this gave me an unexpected giggle. 😂
My take on this looks like something similar to the village I grew up in
..
Basically Mr Brunt can apply for a right of adverse possession, if he can prove uninterrupted use of the land for 10 years..
After that any contest of ownership is moot and he can then legally claim the land (it sounds like there is some ownership mists on the purchase)
Therefore, expect some housing application to be fast tracked by a council that made a packet already from it...
We need this everywhere
We’re not the only corrupt country in the world but it stings that little is done to prevent situations like this..
It’s council corruption and incompetence.
Now the town of Froome
Was running out of room
When the Council up and says
"We've got to sell this chunk,
We oughta make a decent hunk
But we'll keep the right of way"
Now Mrs Nagg
Was a tough old bag
And she wanted to save our space
Raised a ton of dough
But it was "No Go
You'll have to find another place"
Up steps Mr Brunt
A f*****g hard c**t
And he says "Here's twice as much
I'll become a shepherd soon
The green space will be a boon
And the path remains as such"
Then up goes the fence
With a f*****g great pretence
'Bout sheep and people's care
When it's so f*****g blatant
That the fields remain still vacant
With a fence designed to scare
As an American, this is a fascinating topic to me. I am enjoying wrapping my brain around what is essentially a cultural difference, subsequently codified into law, between the UK and the US.
Yeah we have a lot less land than the US. Can't really avoid having fields that need to be used while also needing to have access.
I suppose the alternative would be having paths between the fields but that's kind of already what we do. In my experience a lot of fields, especially with crops, will just have a small section at the edge where people are allowed to walk, and maybe one or two paths through the field. I guess they're useful for the farmers too but so long as you're not a menace and leave the crops alone you're allowed to walk through.
It's pretty cool tbh, I live in what you might call in the US a suburban area, built after the war for housing. It was mostly farm and woodland before so we have woods with coppiced trees, and at the top of the estate you can go through a few alleys and end up in what's essentially still farmland. Sometimes the horses will be out to graze. Tend not to get too close to them and they tend to leave people alone. But I like it, can always go for a walk and get out of suburbia for a little while.
It's not unique to where I live either, If I had to guess I'd say that most homes are within walking distance to some crops or livestock/horses, depending on your definition of walking distance. Well, at least outside of major cities, I live just outside the M25 (which circles greater London), so maybe it's different the closer you get.
Good article. I’m now a subscriber. The council should buy it back for the quarter of a million minus the cost of removing the fence then return the land to public use. Best Regards
Welcome
But why should the current owner be forced to sell his property at a loss? What would be the justification?
Reminds me of a time I was talking to a farmer from the midlands, he had a field close to a village.
The locals would walk, jog, walk dogs on the land. He asked the locals to stick to edges while it was grown for forage, due to not getting dog mess in with the silage.
All was well for many years, until people started ignoring the request.
He fenced the field off and no one was allowed on it.
Wouldn't surprise me if this was the case here. Land owner probably got sick of rubbish and people taking it for granted.
That's an excuse i hear a lot, but let me tell you, i was front row to one of these disputes and I'm not kidding when i say this: it was all about a woman. The landowner lost his girl to a local hiker, and wanted to shut down the popular trails to punish him.
He quoted drugs, trash, junkies... Of course, none existed, but nobody doubts that story. But i knew him and he tells me to my face it's to spite that smug bastard.
Now the only place for kids to play is a Walmart parking lot.
@@RobinTheBot It's sad that kids don't get to play outside the way we did.
My backyard was 220k acres of forest that they used to train the SAS in.
Had some fantastic times and also learned how to do things. Rope swings, dens, playing soldiers. All healthy stuff for kids. All gone, I've not seen a kid outside playing for years.
@@RobinTheBotPeople like that should be shunned from society and opinions ignored by others.
@@huwbishop6995thing is that the land owner does not appear to be doing anything with the land and the fence is totally inappropriate on multiple levels so that argument falls flat.
However the real culprit here is the council, who's interests were they representing ?
@@Aquatarkus96
- *"People like that should be shunned from society and opinions ignored by others."*
For what? Doing what he wanted with his land? Who cares what other people think? Its not their land, its his. Maybe instead of going after the landowner, go after the dude that was fishing on someone elses property? Seriously; if I were to go over to someones house (a house he liked having open so anybody could use it) and I started chatting up his wife, anything negative that happens after that is MY fault. Not the owners.
did you approach the owner for a comment ???
No time, but we would happily make a follow up if he wants to be on camera. Absolutely
have a happy Christmas and New year
Same to you!
thank you for the video
Cordless angle grinders are a wonderful new invention, they are very portable.
Just remember to detatch the battery before storing in your rucksack!
That fence is distincly unsafe, an issue that a random someone with a backhoe could fix in an afternoom.
Very true
battery hack saw will take care of that eyesore.....
Enquiring minds might use it as an area to test Thermite, one day.
That proves why a fence is needed.
What If someone went for a walk at night to see the stars & tripped & cut the back of their head when they turned away from the spike's so it didn't go In their eye ? That would be really sad IMO you might have a claim as well with the state of that fence ?
There's a field near me that's owned by a local school. for years it was used by the local community for sports, recreation, getting between two estates, there was a rope swing on a tree, I even learned to ride the bike up there. every year people gathered up there for fireworks displays.
For whatever reason a couple years after we moved away the school decided to encircle the whole thing in one of those fences. It is absolutely dismal these days.And the thing is, they already had a sports field as part of their campus anyway so it's not like they needed to/were doing much with it most of the time. So now it's just this walled off blacksite in town.
An opportunity missed by the Council to buy recreational land. Reminds me of the Genesis Album 'Selling England by the Pound.
Kids can't play football and cricket on the back of a five pound note, now can they?
It's possible that the current owner has saved a chunk of arable land from the property developers, planting bricks and concrete. Seen too much in the West Country alone!
Nice one
At least Mr Brunt has a name which handily rhymes with what most residents of Frome likely think of him.
A view from the UK. As much as we all agree that the owner purchased it for nefarious reasons, he can do what he likes. He has fulfilled his duty to keep open the right of way but with the most brutal, ugly fencing he could find. Something that wouldn't look out of place on an industrial estate. He wanted to graze cattle on it, where are they? Being the owner, he can change his mind every day of the week if he wants to. As much as i appreciate your criticism and opinion, he can do what he wants, it's his. There have been many such egregious examples similar to this. One that stands out was a case in Sussex with a landowner called Nicholas Van Hoogstraten, a rogue landlord in Brighton. He bought land to build a mansion which had a right of way across it. He tried every which way to physically block it. Then tried to tie up the protesters in expensive court battles and finally failed.
It's my guess he's bought it as an investment so he can apply to the council for change of use from farming to residential which will come eventually due to the pressure on housing. AND THAT Ladies and Gentleman increases the price of land 12-15 times.
How very unfriendly of the current landowner. The Council needed the money but maybe the BIGGER sum could have been raised over time.
Thank you for telling us about it and...HAPPY CHRISTMAS to you and Rebecca.😊😊😊
If you want to argue that this sale by the council was against the public interest. ( Which I do !). Other examples across the U.K. are the continuing sale of recreation grounds going back decades to private owners for, often dubious reasons, that have removed huge amounts of green space from many communities. Also the closure of libraries are at a criminal rate.
I was a child in the eighties, and I could walk to a public swimming pool, a library and two parks withing five minutes, now the same address only has the two parks, both now showing " no ball games allowed signs".
Yeah after all you've got your luxury villa, so we clearly don't need houses in the middle of a housing crisis. All those poor people should just decide to be as rich and privileged as you are and leaving empty wasteland is more important.
Dude ! - I don't own a home, I'm not rich and I work minimum wage.@@nvelsen1975
"Mrs Nag" 😂 This case sounds like Happy Families!
same happened on the Orchardleigh Estate just out side Frome -- all paths fenced in.
Naively I always thought local councils were for the benefit of the local people, how wrong I was and still am !
Councils had their budgets slashed, none of their statutory duties removed, and more added. They were told by the government to sell off land to cover their shortfall. The alternative would be to fail in their statutory duties and end up in court.
In some parts of America, an entrepreneur scrap seller would have collected this abandoned property years ago.
It's not abandoned.
As much as I lothe my local council, especially for it's expensive pointless roadworks, they did good on one thing.
A small gras area, probably about the size of a football pitch when you straighten out its odd shape was going to be sold. UK law says if an off is put in for council owned land like that, has to be considered and in most cases will be accepted if the price is the going rate for land in that area.
The only was it can be flat out refused is if it's classed as a village green. So that's what they did. Quickly reclassified it as a village green so it's forever protected.
Mr Brunt also owns fields to the North of Frome near where I live, he did graze some cattle (Belted Galloways) here for a few years but in 2023 had a couple of Alpaca on one of the Fields, the path across the fields already has a hedge on one side and a fence on the other so no iron curtain
4:30 If you did not know the laws esp in 1979 to early 1980 means any council's assets being sold off has to go to the biggest bidder.
It does not matter about its end use or benefit and thus they can not sell it below market rate - otherwise, the council can end up in jail and surcharged for the money lost.
Also, the original owner has first choice in buying back the land... under HS1 Margaret Thatcher strengthened the laws about selling land back that was unused or unwanted so these laws will be used when selling land due to HS2 changes - ie land can not be sold to donors of the conservative party below market value because they have to offer to the original land owner first.
Add to this this land being priced up but if the original owners can not buy it the land can not be sold below what has been offered to the original owners because that will be against the law because it is below market price.
So essential we are saying the law needs reform
@@pwhitewick That could be the case here but it opens to so much abuse and is linked to corruption
@@pwhitewickthis land was never owned by the council, as several commenters have explained. If council land could be sold cheaply to someone who the council favoured, or who had a scheme they favoured, there would be a lot of room for corruption. Sell it cheap for some kickbacks and then the owner can sell it at market price...
@@pwhitewickNot really, in this case the land was still privately owned and apparently sold in a private sale to the current landowner. We don't need a law change which would give the council the right to interfere in a private land sale transaction.
@@shaunpatrick8345 yup, see pinned comment.
Speaking as a ex Town Councillor , the Councillors have a duty to the council tax payers to look after council's finances , however they also have a duty to provide public services , so it's a tough judgement to make .
I hope it’s not that fence in Frome you’re sitting on.
Councils rarely make decisions that benefit the majority public.
Look after our money by paying themselves a fat salary and doing nothing to improve the area
The council did not dell the land! They acted as an intermediary only between the seller and buyer.
its a trap to think acquiescing to these libertarian torys is for the greater good. councils need to find better ways to fight for their people.
the more you sell off, the less you have to fight with, the more they can take from you.
I would have done the same, you have a right of way but the right doesn't mean you can use all of the land , it's use is to get from one place to another.
Problem is, in Frome a lot of dog walkers don't give a toss about anybody else. They don't pick up dog shit and leave dogs off the leads, you don't need to look too far in the local groups to hear of people who have had their own dogs attacked by another persons off-lead dog.
The only issue is that the fence needs fixing.
His land - he can do whatever he likes as long as the RoW (right to traverse, not right of access) is intact.
Are there prettier ways to do it? Sure. But that's not a requirement.
@@retiredbore378thank you
A local footpath used to open out into the ample grounds of a detached house. A new owner erected a fence about 1.5 metres from the boundary hedge, confining the footpath to a strip about 50m long which becomes a swamp in Winter and overgrown with brambles in Summer. The local authority have no funds to investigate, let alone take any action.
Happy Christmas. 🎄🎅🎁🎉🕆🕊
Nothing a cordless driver & the right size socket cannot fix.
Mr Brunt has probably bought this land as an investment. He is more likely to sell the land for housing. This was never going to be used for grazing cattle. After all, an empty field is worth more to Mr Brunt if he sells it as building land, could make a hell of lot money selling his land to a house building company 🏘🏘💷💷💷
Arguing now that it's a public space and should be used for the community is like arguing to close the gate after the horse has gone. For better or worse the council sold the land and the land owner wants to do this with it. Maybe paying more attention to the local council elections for candidates who have the same goals and ideals would be a better use of effort.
It can still be declared a village green therefore available for all to use, even if privately owned...
@@garethaethwy
If you want to pay for a multi-million lawsuit for damages after forcibly turning a housing development into wasteland so a few entitled people can have their dog sh*t on it, that's one very quick way to do it.
Why would you want to block development during a housing crisis anyway?
@@nvelsen1975 You obviously didn't watch the video, did you? Or if you did, you didn't listen... Paul was quite clear that others used the field for recreation, not just dog walkers. Just because you've got an obvious dislike for dogs, doesn't mean others can't love their dogs & want to enjoy the outdoors with them...
Love to the family x
@@garethaethwythere was no obvious dislike for dogs there. Not even a hint of it.
@@garethaethwy
Maybe you should've read my post before blabbering instead of just imagining what you think it said.
We need houses. Fact.
If you rob a land owner of value by restricting their use rights, the government (meaning basically: taxpayers like me) have to pay compensation. Another fact.
I used to own a Kuvacz, another fact. 😃
This kind of thing makes me angry. Especially when it is pure greed on the local authority’s part. Near me, Peterborough City Council are debating selling off 60 public buildings (library’s, community centres etc) yet they are public buildings. Once they are gone, you never get them back.
I mean, its his land. He can do what he wants with it. The fact that he left the path there for people to use is pretty considerate of him. He didnt need to do that, but he did. But yeah, the fence does need to be fixed as that lean could cause problems down the road. Maybe an enclosed arch fence, that way the walls have some support to keep them straight.
The fact he left a path there is a legal right, not a consideration.
@@pwhitewick
So he _needed_ to leave a path?
Correct @@SvendleBerries
@@pwhitewick
Considering its "his" property, thats a bad deal. Maybe the sorry state of the fence is a form of his disapproval.
rights of way trace back hundreds of years@@SvendleBerries. You cannot just buy up land and remove it. Otherwise you'd literally have no roads, bridleways, footpaths, open access land. Nothing. He purchased the land knowing this.
There's many things we've lost, especially here in the South West, due to the inability to reconcile the management of what could be common land, and the integrity of private land. Vespasian's Camp in Amesbury, part of the oldest still inhabited town in England, is merely a closed off area for the landowner to keep fowls. Likewise, Yarnbury Castle - is it now MOD? I'm not sure - used to be the centre of local sheep markets and other events until fairly recently (historically speaking). At some point we lost access to these places.
I am happy for their preservation, and I absolutely think wild land should be promoted, but how many times has a landowner simply closed off a field, extinguished an easement, or had closed a right of way, or left one to fall into disrepair and condemned to be forgotten? The law should allow for prescription of rights of way and common land through long use as in line with reality, not just easements between tenements. The law should be lenient on trespassers, but harsh on vandals.
One other point - if this field is within walking distance to the centre of Frome, then let it be developed with aesthetically acceptable medium density flats and houses with minimal road access. Housing demand will only continue to eat up the countryside, and more 'roamable', pastoral, or potentially wild land will be lost, unless these opportunities are taken. We continue to see family houses, built dense but treated as if not, with no 'real' gardens far out from town centres that require car ownership as a prerequisite to living there. We must take these opportunities to have good mixed density housing with cycle paths and in walking distance to the town centre and the station, or else developers will build in worse locations, worse housing.
Politicians are surprisingly cheap to buy. Only a few thousand, maybe a hundred thousand for a top level politician. And then you can do what you want.
@@peterhoulihan9766 Yes, it's a shame such incentives can work on individual politicians from private 'donors'. One thing apparent about our country is that we are yet to realise how we can motivate our leaders to provide for us long term for the benefit of the wider economy. Efficient housing keeps business rates and council tax low, allows us to plan with contingency for automated logistics, and allows us to promote active transport, necessary for reducing the financial burden of sedentary lifestyles, obesity, and poor wellbeing on the NHS.
I believe with the right financing systems, people and companies could stand to gain from promoting such benefits, while also supporting all the secondary benefits we as rural people should want - preservation of historic buildings, rights of way, health, community.
Developers can make a quick quid building detached communities dependent on cars while demeaning our local architecture and creating unhealthy NHS patients. If there was a system of financing for developers whereby they can directly make money from helping to reduce the expenditure per capita of local councils (e.g. more efficient waste collection, or less need for school bus provisions, fewer potholes and roadsigns) or could be awarded loans for building with contingency for automated logistics infrastructure, payable only on failure to provide economic benefits, then maybe the pendulum could swing in the right direction.
Saddly the way councils operate these days, Selling of numerous assets, playing fields etc to the highest bidder without any consideration for the people who really own it the local people. The land is not owned by the council but the people who live in the council a sad fact that seems to slip by the minds of those elected. They should have sold it to the local community
Most councils are cash strapped because the government keep reducing their budgets and expect them to do more with less.
Paul got it wrong here. The council never did own the land.
@@TalesOfWar Well true on the main funding but..... being cash strapped Sorry your barking up the wrong tree by miles!! Councils ain't never short of money, being a council is a LICENCE TO PRINT MONEY. They have got enough to go around 4x over for many years to go...... Just cut out the guts of the gold plated pension pots/off the books slush funds/management + above vastly bloated salaries + expenses then all the vastly unnecessary staff that the private sector never needed. Your savings plus high % for investment = more money that they could ever need!
@@NickLea Well with that unsafe metal tipped fence, they could once they have fix the issue up either by removal or pushing it over on the ground & if the owner doesn't pay up (bill) they get the land as payment. If the fence isn't there the public has legal access no matter what either way.
Ah, but Keith...the land was not theirs to sell....they only acted as intermediary
Danke!
Thank you 😊
Thanks
'I've had to erect these fences for health and safety' immediately after an unmonitored double track railway level crossing. You couldn't make it up!
One of the great realities of private land ownership is that people who don’t own the land often feel that their opinion on what should be done with the land trumps the opinion of the person who actually bought it and pays the rates on it. A second great reality is that such people will frequently try to impose their will vicariously through local or other government. A third great reality is that people have no problem with the state overstepping or understepping its authority if they agree with what it is or isn’t doing, but think it’s the highest outrage if the state does the same thing in a way that favours their opponent. And a fourth great reality, especially prevalent in Britain, is that about a fifth of the population is seriously fucked off by the idea of private property, and everything that they do proceeds outward from there.
Your arguments would make perfect sense but the fence is unsafe and additionally this was sold by the council, according to this video, therefore it was publicly accessible land and then some guy paid for it and wierdly just fenced it off and did nothing with it. It’s his right... but the question is more, did the council have the right to sell something that was of use to the community? They should’ve registered it as a village green or common land so that the council couldn’t do this, but they didn’t.
Oh and also he likely doesn’t pay rates on this land... you pay council tax on residential property and business rates for a business but if it isn’t being lived on or used for commercial purposes you won’t pay rates on it.
@@tobeytransport2802 - It isn’t public land, it’s a public right of pathway through private land. I remember this case from when it first arose. Ramblers were grossly abusing their rights of passage and fencing was necessary, iirc, to prevent them from letting their dogs crap everywhere and render the pasture land unusable. As I noted in a different comment it wouldn’t surprise me a jot if people are bending the fences inward in order to sic the health and safety dogs on him.
@@tobeytransport2802 - He has to be paying some tax or levy on it. There really isn’t anything as untaxed land, period. Governments are simply too greedy. But even if I grant your premise for the sake of argument, pastoral and agricultural land in England brings with it large regulatory compliance burdens which have out-of-pocket and professional costs. Put differently, I may not pay £500 per year in tax on such land, but I’ll probably have to pay land managers, contractors and solicitors £1000 a year to fulfil all the reporting and regulatory requirements.
Same sort of thing happened around here. A perfectly good permissive route that linked up further longer paths was shut off by the owners because of the dog brigade allowing constant fouling of the path.
@@tobeytransport2802so you're in category 3!
But in fact the council did not own the land, they mediated between a potential buying consortium and the estate of the late previous owner. And the owner is not doing nothing with it, it is being mown at the very least. Having dog mess and litter on your grass crop is not good.
Great film to raise a country wide issue. Clearly the current owner has money to burn on fencing. That sort of fencing is at least £75/m (plus installation). 150m long path (300m fencing used) plus a couple of gates @ £1k a go. He must have spent well over 10% of the purchase price just to make a point.
Excellent
I didnt think that you could have the pointy bits of a fence on the public side, from the safety side of things. Same with barbed wire installations on slanted posts they always hang over on the private side
My thoughts too
And what about planning permission, if people need planning to put up a 6' fence at front of house why can he put it up along a public footpath
Paul, you are (I believe) mistaken about the council having ever owned it. Even in the Press Reader reference you give it states _"Mr Brunt ... bought the 29 acre plot last September after the previous owner - who had happily allowed open access - died._ This was also reported by the BBC as well.
You are also mistaken about the land being sold for £100k as a community asset. The Localism Act 2011 created something called an "Asset of Community Value". What this means is that a community can ask the local county council to nominate a piece of land or property as an "Asset of Community Value" for the next five years.
If the council agree to do this then the building or land is added to the list of community assets for a period of five years. If the owner decides to sell a property on the list, they must tell the council. If a community group wants to buy it, they can invoke their Community Right to Bid. This pauses the sale for six months to give them time to raise funds and submit a bid. The community group does not have the right to buy the asset. At the end of the six month period, the owner can sell the asset to whoever they wish and at any price.
Again, from the Press Reader reference you gave it says that _"The group attempted to register the open pasture as a community asset, which also failed"_ So, it would appear that the local county council turned down their application and the land was then sold at auction after the previous owner died.
Excellent. I had confused myself with the link there. I'll add some clarification in the description when I get a second. Tha ks
There's several comments that appear to have not seen this, it wasn't until I scrolled through that I found out myself.
@brockfordjunktion I've added it to the description, though I am led to believe the council did inherite it after the previous land owner and it was indeed in their care. I'm not sure which is true. 🤷♂️
@@pwhitewickwhy would a council inherit land rather than it being auctioned by the estate?
@mojonojo3 because if there is no one to inherit the land, it becomes crown property. Having read that the land was sold by the council this is what I assumed had happened. See pinned comment where I have acknowledged there is conflicting info. 👍
Surely, if the fence is leaning in, it is technically obstructing the right of way, which should be reported to the local council for enforcement. The land owner has a statutory duty to maintain it in a manner which is safe, which it clearly is not, so let's get the person prosecuted, or the fence repaired. Go for it.
Its an interesting situation, but when it comes to it, the owner can do what he/she/they want to do to protect their land from anyone who chooses to use the public right of way that runs through it. The ramblers, dog walkers or other users of the path may not like what they see, but it keeps them safe, keeps them on the right of way and offers a direct access point to the rail crossing. If I was the land owner, I would probably do a similar thing, but perhaps the fence would not be quite as imposing.
I'd lean towards blaming the intractability of the most rabid of the "right to roam" movement and ironically the amount of damage that is done by walkers on popular footpaths. I've seen farmer's fields where a path across was walked into a muddy quagmire, and walkers instead of giving the land time to dry out, just kept walking further and further from the path to avoid the mud. Eventually turning a 20 yard wide swath of arable land into stinking, muddy, swamp. And this wasn't even the result of years of abuse. This happened in just one particularly rainy month.
Or times when there were protests and mass invasions, because a landowner wanted to block access (while also providing a marked and prepared alternative route) to a path badly degraded by walkers, so that he could affect repairs safely.
I absolutely support the idea of keeping the countryside and ancient routes available. But also see no reason why said paths could not be shifted to run around the boundaries of fields (by mutual consent). But no. It's gotta be THIS path right here. Right in the middle of this farmer's crops. Because a 400 year old document says so. And of course landowners have a hand in this too. Trying to block access completely thus forcing campaigners to resort to those 400 year old documents to force the issue.
In short, everybody could benefit from being a little less bloody minded about this whole thing, but I definitely lean towards blaming the "right to roam" nutjobs more. Being willing to trample a path to ruin and then KEEP GOING. Just because "mah rights". That behaviour does not naturally engender sympathy and understanding from landowners.
With the fence starting to lean inwards any walker can complain or share their concern to the council to pled to the owner to A. Remove the fence, B. Repair the fence and make it safer for walkers or C. Return the land back to the council
I should also have said for the village green the application must be made within 12 months of the challenge, ie the fence going up.
The owner has every right, it is his private land. The public have no say.
I agree
Not 100% true as it is a public right of way and so needs to be safe to use. It is illegal for example to use barbed wire next to a right of way.
What happens when he's dead, and the land is fucked. Not everyone is smart enough to make right decisions with their land
@@leonandre7210 The Council can enforce the right of way if need be.
@@leonandre7210 Who decides what the right decisions are?
the fence is a hazard and should be torn down...