Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Brecon Beacons National Park "Water Trail Leaflet"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    717

    Default Brecon Beacons National Park "Water Trail Leaflet"

    From FB.

    Brecon Beacons National Park "Water Trail Leaflet" showing where you are "allowed" to canoe near Brecon.

    Note: Splash Funded & restrictions - downstream - refer to Usk & Wye Foundation.

    http://www.breconbeacons.org/all_dow...il-leaflet.pdf

    (If you live and/or paddle in the Brecon Beacons National Park (BBNP) area, write to them with your views and if you don't mind add a copy here)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    19,874

    Default

    Well, I suppose its nice to see them promoting access to the water, even if they refer to the flawed Wye & Usk Foundation agreement, but why is the map "upside down", i.e. south at the top?
    Covering as many malmiles as possible before being distracted by the pub!

    Paddle Points - where to paddle

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    717

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,588

    Default

    I can understand the position of the BBNP officers as they need a working relationship with the landowners, they are between a rock and a hard place. But to acknowledge the WUF so called "agreement" and present it as valid and legal is unacceptable, they should remain neutral and at most state that access to the river is disputed.
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    549

    Default

    Looking at the Facebook dialogue it claims that "the majority of landowners have agreed to allow access". Playing Devil's advocate here, but if they want to play by the rules that they've devised then they must stick to them. If not all landowners are party to the agreement then how can WUF or the Brecon Beacons NP publicise an "agreement" that does not include all affected landowners because some of them may not want to agree to canoists using "their " stretch of the river and if they don't agreee then the whole agreement fails. Effectively any public body can only act in circumstances where it is lawful to act. So, setting aside the arguement about PRN for the moment if they choose to follow the riparian onwners controlling navigation school of thought then they should only publicise something that clearly has ALL affected landowners in agreement, not simply a majority. Someone needs to point this out to the National Park.
    Mike

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    717

    Default

    All feel free to contact them so it is not just the usual people doing it.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,588

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quicky View Post
    All feel free to contact them so it is not just the usual people doing it.
    Fair comment, I will send a letter direct.
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Bucks
    Posts
    6,646

    Default

    Oh dear! Am I becomeing one of the 'usual people'?

  9. #9

    Default

    Adrian, with your wide ranging knowledge of many aspects of the English countryside and more particularly its rivers, no one could describe you as "usual".
    Doug Dew
    "The best is yet to come" My Father


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    717

    Default

    a few comments on social media.

    We note from your earlier post that you do not accept that anyone has the right to limit access to the waterways of the UK. We are also aware of the documents referred to in support of your claim. In August 2010 however, the National Assembly for Wales Sustainability Committee produced a report on access to inland water which did not bear out the position you describe. In responding to that report the Minister made the following Recommendation
    “That the Minister for Environment, Sustainability and Housing strongly encourages and promotes the setting up of voluntary access agreements by landowners through the existing “Round Table” group of water pursuits interests and actively encourages land owners such as public bodies (eg the Forestry Commission, local authorities) and large charities (eg the National Trust) to pilot the type of access agreements outlined in this report.”
    Accordingly when access arrangements are negotiated – such as that organised by the Wye and Usk Foundation we support them. Should we receive different advice from the Welsh Government we will act on it accordingly but at the moment that is our understanding of the situation in relation to access on inland waterways in Wales."
    So the question is..... again..... on who's authority are you making restrictive access agreements?

    Are you saying that Welsh Government have given you legal advice?

    Some of the evidence you now have was not available then. Do YOU find fault with any of our evidence or have "evidence" to support a contrary conclusion.

    As Welsh Gov have rightly said that they are not the judiciary, I would suggest that BBNP should be diligent and seek their own legal opinion.

    As it is a matter of public interest, I presume you would be happy to share your findings rather than going thorough the rigours of Freedom of Information requests.

    Brecon Beacons National Park Brecon Beacons National Park Authority has not made any restrictive access agreements. We have accepted and publicised access arrangements negotiated by others in line with Welsh Government advice.
    Which is true. They are just accepting the Wye and Usk one as gospel and promoting it as it is is law.....

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Eton on the banks of the River Thames between Windsor and Slough
    Posts
    2,282

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quicky View Post

    .... They are just accepting the Wye and Usk one as gospel and promoting it as it is is law.....
    Which, of course, it ISN'T
    Fran

    Photobucket stole my sig



  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fran View Post
    Which, of course, it ISN'T
    Not only isn't it the law but as an agreement to restrict the Common Law Public Right of Navigation that exists on all rivers where navigation is practical, it is unlawful!
    Keith

  13. #13

    Default

    Given it is unlawful, what legal remedy would be available?
    Doug Dew
    "The best is yet to come" My Father


  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdew99 View Post
    Given it is unlawful, what legal remedy would be available?
    BBNP takes its lead from Welsh Government (the remit of the `umbrella` body for National Parks in Wales includes:
    * Facilitating and establishing effective communication with WAG
    * Advising and influencing emerging Welsh national policy.

    Welsh Government have refused to divulge the advice they have received about the legal position regarding access to inland water, while taking the position (expressed in an Environment Agency statement) that the legal position is unclear and that it is open to individuals to seek legal redress. This shores up the status quo in the absence of the funds for a legal challenge.

    It is always worth challenging barriers to public access, to raise public awareness and prevent a return to the old assumptions about access that arose from (usually) well-intentioned `agreements`.

    Ultimately, the answer has to be legislation to enshrine public rights with responsibilities, as with Land Reform (Scotland) 2003. This is the direction taken by the Waters of Wales - WoW campaign community.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Keynsham near Bristol
    Posts
    3,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdew99 View Post
    Given it is unlawful, what legal remedy would be available?
    A lawful response is to look at the evidence and then paddle responsibly, considerately and courteously.

    The legal remedy that worked for many hundreds of years was to invoke the concept of "public nuisance". According to Lord Justice Denning

    "....... a public nuisance is a nuisance which is so widespread in its range or so indiscriminate in its effect that it would not be reasonable to expect one person to take proceedings on his own responsibility to put a stop to it, but that it should be taken on the responsibility of the community at large."
    The role of "the community at large" was fulfilled over the centuries by the Crown appointing specific commissions, then appointing permanent courts (Commissioners of Sewers) etc but now we rely on the Attorney General (Counsel General in Wales) who has yet to show any inclination to pro-actively defend the public right of navigation against such nuisances. If there was a legal challenge mounted to deny the existence of PRN he might feel obliged to defend it then but there seems no/little prospect of such a challenge. In the meantime, Lord Justice Denning recognised that it's not reasonable to expect one person (or organisation) to bring proceedings (because of the costs involved).

    So the legal remedy is not (yet ) sufficiently available or attractive.
    Keith

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,588

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KeithD View Post
    A lawful response is to look at the evidence and then paddle responsibly, considerately and courteously.

    The legal remedy that worked for many hundreds of years was to invoke the concept of "public nuisance". According to Lord Justice Denning

    The role of "the community at large" was fulfilled over the centuries by the Crown appointing specific commissions, then appointing permanent courts (Commissioners of Sewers) etc but now we rely on the Attorney General (Counsel General in Wales) who has yet to show any inclination to pro-actively defend the public right of navigation against such nuisances. If there was a legal challenge mounted to deny the existence of PRN he might feel obliged to defend it then but there seems no/little prospect of such a challenge. In the meantime, Lord Justice Denning recognised that it's not reasonable to expect one person (or organisation) to bring proceedings (because of the costs involved).

    So the legal remedy is not (yet ) sufficiently available or attractive.
    A very interesting point of view Kieth, not one I've heard before but it makes good sense.
    "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
    Grp Cpt Sir Douglas Bader CBE,DSO,DFC,FRAeS.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Yet another dodgy agreement the CRT have signed up to....

    Canal & River Trust Hi Andy,

    With regards to the poster you referred to, we have simply accepted and publicised voluntary access arrangements negotiated by others.

    Kind regards,

    Ingrid
    Replied

    Not only are these access agreements not the law but as an agreement to restrict the
    Common Law Public Right of Navigation that exists on all rivers where navigation is practical, it is unlawful!

    Public rights of navigation can not be restricted by landowners or riparian rights holders any more than I can restrict public use of the road running past my house. Hindering public navigation is a public nuisance (a criminal offence).

    This may be of use for you. It gives a bit of info on River Access.

    King v Clark

    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jQ4wAAAAIAAJ...

    Magna Carta ......... ,
    clause 33 was to be of enormous significance in the history of navigation in this country, because it established the principle of free passage along England's rivers,
    so laying the foundations for transport development in the Industrial Revolution" from

    http://magnacarta.cmp.uea.ac.uk/.../...a.../Clause_33
    and then the Law in Wales Acts

    Laws_in_Wales_Acts_1535_and_1542
    http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Laws_in_..._1535_and_1542

    interference with navigation is a public nuisance - a criminal offence!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •