Discussion

Main Board| Accommodation Wanted| Accommodation Offered
Start a new discussion on this board

Let your next career move come to you.

Is camping "open-air recreation"?

No says Sir Julian Flaux C - paragraphs 78-80 seem to be the key parts of his reasoning. I'm not sure he's right to equate "open air recreation" to walking/horse riding and matters necessarily ancillary to walking/horse riding. The walking/horse riding specifies the way in which the land may be accessed, not what may be done once it has been accessed. Camping is or can be "recreation" and it is definitely in the open air. I hope there will be an appeal.

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/ch/2023/35

horseshit. camping is temporarily residing. and it’s inside a structure. ancillary 2 camping there might b some recreational activities, many of them open air (while not inside the tent) but the actual camping part where u go 2 sleep is obv not open air recreation

and even if that’s wrong, it’s the right overall result if it means the public can’t treat a right of way as a right 2 camp newhere along the right of way. cos that is clear excessive or improper use of the right

(i haven’t read the whole case so i am guessing that’s wot the topic is)

heh

i’ve skim read the background - here’s a q 4 the law studes (and heff). i thought u can acquire a right if u do it long enough without permission. and they must have been wild camping 4 ages. so if the answer is that it’s not a right in the dartmoor act, y haven’t they argued that if it isn’t then in ne event the right has been acquired independently by years of use? or can that right only b acquired by an individual rather than “the public”?

or if this is actually in the case report, fine

I STAND WITH THE PUT-UPON LANDOWNERS OF THIS GREAT NATION!!

IT IS BAD ENOUGH THAT THE POORS ARE ALLOWED TO WALK AROUND THEIR HARD-EARNED PRIVATE PROPERTY... BUT TO ALLOW THEM TO ENJOY CAMPING TOO?!?

FOR SHAME!!

yeah, don't see camping as recreation, it might be done ancilliary to recreation, but camping is a temporary occupation of land and should require at least a licence 

Heffalump13 Jan 23 12:58 Reply| Report

camping could be a form of residency but it can also definitely be a recreational activity 

depends on the circs

inkorrekt

a) it’s fooking horrible, so it’s not recreational

b) even if ur 1 of the weirdos that “enjoy” it, it’s the circumstances and ancillary activities (not the physical occupation while asleep)

so in all circumstances it’s not recreational

the mere fact something is unpleasant doesn't prevent it from being recreational

eg: bog snorkelling, hunting, shooting

and in any event plenty of people do go camping specifically for the sake of camping. it is not necessarily ancillary to anything else

I do agree with you Heff on your opening point, that Flaux has cocked up the opening paragraph. That says:

"The principal issue in this case is whether section 10(1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) confers on the public a right not only to walk or ride a horse on the commons but also to camp there overnight."

Bollocks. The language of s10 is clear enough. The crux is whether camping overnight amounts to being on the commons for the purposes of open air recreation. Agree with you that walking or riding a horse is about initial access, not about remaining, and it's a misdirection to suggest camping needs to share any qualities with the permitted means of access.

TOOD - presumably camping has been with the (implicit) consent of the landowner do no prescriptive rights? anyway  any rights acquired would only accrue to the individuals exercising the rights if they satisfied the tests (unlikely to be sufficiently intensive unless camping fanatics) - not a public right. 
it doesn’t pass the smell test as recreation to me but who knows. 

Oracle pretty sure only an individual or separate legal personality such as a company can acquire a right and to do so requires you to do something for 20 years and I doubt the public could show that someone has camped on Dartmoor most nights for 20 years.

 

Pity the vagrants who sleep on the streets.

They would not pass the smell test IME.

The fragrance and freshness of their sheets.

Means it's non-recreational pastime. 

Given it has been assumed to be a right for decades, long before these people bought the land, what utter kvnts they are.

Hiking over a long distance over multiple days is definitely outdoor recreation, and taking shelter to sleep during that is not a different, non outdoor recreational pursuit. Setting up a camp with several tents, for multiple days is different but that's not what wild camping is. 

The argument that you're only 5 miles from a road so just use cars more to hike is somewhat missing the point. 

not prescription.

in context I’d say camping is not open air recreation - the Act deals with common land and use for camping conflicts with the customary use of common land for grazing. generally you can’t camp on common land without the owner’s permission and it seems unlikely that it was intended that the Act would (without expressly saying so) authorise camping. 

Presumably tho when the the aunt and auntess wake you in the middle of the night you just pop out and say “sorry squire, Ill take it down right away” and then go back to sleep in your sleeping bag outside. If he wants to hang around and spend the night chatting about the merits of global macro v algo trading strategy, cool - fire up Rof and get one of the regulars to put him right. If he doesnt fancy it just go back in and pack up in the morning.

If he pulls a gun on you or something like that -  fire up the phone, go viral and use the money for proper holidays.

If Flaux turns up, litigate whether the sleeping bag option is open air recreation. Surely it must be unless he is advocating mandatory naturism. Again. Rof is your friend here.

Either way it sll seems hopelessly unenforceable, so who cares?

At least a few years before we are all chipped and they can strip your social credit account.

 

Not sure about the law, cant be arsed to read up on it.  But it is the wrong decision in terms of balancing rights of landowners and users of the Moor from a societal point of view.  The benefits of being able to temporarily camp on uncultivated land far from other habitation (great for those that do it) are far greater than the cost to the landowner (virtually none)  If it is a correct decision legally the law should be changed.

What would the new law say? Would you allow them to camp indefinitely or just dusk to dawn? Presumably those big family sized tents with rooms wouldn't be allowed. Wild campers only living off nuts and seeds.  

Seito, everyone assumed the current law allowed camping as part of hiking on the moor and it has gone on happily for decades.  It is presumably not beyond the wit of man to insert wording to make clear (as it is obviously not already) that recreational camping on the moor of the sort done for the last few decades may continue.  

everyone assumed the current law allowed camping as part of hiking on the moor and it has gone on happily for decades

THEN THANK GOD ALEXANDER DARWALL, OWNER OF THE BLACHFORD, STEPPED IN TO RIGHT THIS HISTORIC WRONG!!

NOT ALL HEROES WEAR CAPES!!

No drafting hazards whatsoever. I'll knock something up.

such temporary encampments messuages and emoluments apud as shall have be deemed fit antea for erstwhile occupation of no more than ten honest and impotent vagrantes, villeines, vagabondes and undsrables as shall have been heretofor customary from time immemorial and in obeisance of any signorial ordinances sic postea. 

 

The point is when everyone thought recreation included camping there was no huge influx of people taking the piss and camping for days in huge tents, so I am not sure why there will be in the future.    Just insert (including camping for not more than 24 hours in one spot) after the word recreation in the exiting legislation.  Job done.

Now they're parking all over the place. Some of the frontagers are up in arms but opinion is divided. Mrs Miggins owner of Number 23 observed that parking never used to be a problem on the street. Now they park all over the place. Some of them have two or three cars. Another owner commented that this right must be allowed to continue unfettered. It's not right that she goes around making everyone's life a misery. Think of the kids who need a parking spaces. It's alright for her she's got a driveway and she never uses the car. She got the council to come out and everything. Silly old bitch. 

nice to see the Court of Appeal agreed with me:

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/darwall-v-dartmoor-national-park-authority/

From summary:

“Recreation” meant “an activity or pastime pursued, especially habitually, for the pleasure or interest it gives”. The words of section 10(1) did not naturally limit the kind of open-air recreation to those undertaken on foot or on horseback. The critical question was whether “open-air recreation” should properly be taken to include wild camping.

...
7. The Master of the Rolls said that a walker who lays down for a rest without pitching a tent would be present for the purpose of open-air recreation. It was the same if that walker fell asleep. It made no difference if the walker rested or slept on a plastic sheet to prevent the damp, or in a sleeping bag to protect from the cold, or under a tarpaulin or in an open tent or in a closed tent to protect from the rain. The fact that a tent was closed rather than open could not convert the wild camping from being an open-air recreation into not being one.

8. Lord Justice Underhill said that wild camping plainly fell within the definition of “openair recreation”. He said that many people took pleasure in the experience of sleeping in a tent in open country, typically, though not invariably, as part of a wider experience of walking across country, and perhaps engaging in other open-air recreations such as birdwatching, during the day. It was “a perfectly natural use of language to describe that as a recreation, and also as occurring in the open air, notwithstanding that while the camper is actually in the tent the outside air will be to some extent excluded”.

"5. I have concluded with some reluctance, bearing in mind the clear and opposite view reached by the Chancellor, that the words of section 10(1) are indeed clear and unambiguous."

Glad to be wrong :)

Heff, thanks, wasn't being sufficiently clear and unambiguous, meant just that my prediction was wrong:

" 

eeyore13 Jan 23 14:15

Reply | 

Report

I've been heavily involved in Ten Tors and other Dartmoor stuff for several years. This is bad news. But I don't rate the chances of a successful appeal."

Sad day for private landowners
 

And a joyous day for the other 95% of the population

these nobheads bought a large estate in a national park

f**k their attempts to seal it off and fill it with glamping yurts

I think their plan was more grouse shooting than yurts. A sad day for one UKIP funder and all round dickhead, rather than for the majority of private landowners.

I think their plan was more grouse shooting than yurts.

HE HAD A DREAM WHICH HAS BEEN RUINED BY THESE HORRIBLE SELFISH PEOPLE WHO WANT TO CONTINUE USING THE NATIONAL PARK!!

I wonder if bivouacking is allowed.   

I was very much thinking along the same lines - a close call, I would suspect, especially in relation to those type of bivvies that have an insect mesh covering the face area.....

Join the discussion

Login Register