Uk To Allow Public Access Around The Coastline

[Theodolite]

"England's coastline is a national treasure. It should be the birthright of every citizen" from the Independent Report

 

The move, which will make it possible to walk all 9,040 miles around the coast of Great Britain and create the first ever right of access to thousands of beaches, is provoking a bitter backlash from landowners and celebrities with expensive seaside properties, who will not be compensated

 

Scotland already has it and Wales is under construction: Sky News

 

 

BBC News News report

 

 

Well, like the smoking topic, this one hasn't popped up for a week or two. Maybe this latest news from the UK might make a difference as to what the situation is on the Isle of Man.

[Tugger]

I thought there was already public access to all areas between the high and low tide points?

[Pragmatopian]

Seems a bit off to me - you pay a shedload for land specifically because it has its own beach and then the government snatches it back from you. Something of a blow for the right to enjoyment of your possession without undue interference...

[Albert Tatlock]

Seems a bit off to me - you pay a shedload for land specifically because it has its own beach and then the government snatches it back from you. Something of a blow for the right to enjoyment of your possession without undue interference...

All land is owned by someone. IMO, just because a minority of people have vast amounts of money does not give them the moral right to spoil everyone else's enjoyment and remove access to great swathes of land from the general populace.

 

Though people may have 'the deeds' to these areas, nevertheless, the island still belongs to us all in many ways. The island will still be here long after these people are dead and gone. Remember, that in many cases, these people who own large areas of land would not actually have such amounts of money if it hadn't been for the rest of the population buying into their ideas, goods, services etc. in the first place. That does not then give them the right 'to buy' the right to diminish people's quality of life, and especially so of they are not from the island in the first place.

 

There is always a balance to be had between the right to privacy and 'enjoyment of your possession' and allowing sensible access for the public to such areas of your land. Equally, people also have a responsibility to not trample through 'gardens' and to respect privacy. This requires sensible access management, with a right of appeal on both sides - especially for those people whose land is not that big but just happens to sit e.g. on the coast, or near/on a 'right of way'. However, IMO, the general principle of having access has to come first - but Joe Public also has to realise that the compromise-solutions may cost money e.g. building additional bypass footpaths, fencing and bridges etc. to maintain the privacy of the landowner.

 

If Allan Bell wants to see many more squillionaires over here and get permission to built mansions etc. - and given only 220 square miles - then if this issue is not sorted it will only lead to many future problems.

[VinnieK]

All land is owned by someone. IMO, just because a minority of people have vast amounts of money does not give them the moral right to spoil everyone else's enjoyment and remove access to great swathes of land from the general populace.

 

This is blatant, near nonsensical, demagoguery. The issue is to what extent ownership of property entitles the owner to freely enjoy their property without constraint (such as being forced to allow others to enjoy their property), it is not an issue of landowners buying property specifically to "spoil everyone's enjoyment" (I doubt there are many examples of such purchases) and justifying their "moral right" it with their "vast amounts of money".

 

Though people may have 'the deeds' to these areas, nevertheless, the island still belongs to us all in many ways. The island will still be here long after these people are dead and gone.

 

By this reasoning we're all then entitled to take regular shortcuts through your house and have picnics in your garden, since under this reasoning none of us can be regarded as anything more than temporary custodians of the land we possess. Indeed, if we accept your reasoning, the island, far from belonging to "us all", actually belongs to no-one at all, and thus anyone may exercise a right to enjoy whatever scrap of property they fancy. In short, as romantically appealing as your notion is, it's a poor basis for working out the precise details of property rights.

 

Remember, that in many cases, these people who own large areas of land would not actually have such amounts of money if it hadn't been for the rest of the population buying into their ideas, goods, services etc. in the first place.

 

We buy goods and services because we need them, or we regard them as worth the expence of purchasing them, the delivery of the goods and services we buy is all we're due. The idea that producers somehow owe their customers more than what they buy is simply bizarre. If someone empoys your services, are they they then entitled to enjoy the property you've bought with your profits? Of course not.

 

That does not then give them the right 'to buy' the right to diminish people's quality of life, and especially so of they are not from the island in the first place.

 

Again, disingenuity and demagoguery. The right to diminish people's quality of life (apart from being something of an overstatement) is not what this is about. The intent to enjoy something in such a way that others object to is not necessarly the intent to diminish other's quality of life, and the right to enjoy property is not the same as the "right" to diminish others' quality of life.

 

There is always a balance to be had between the right to privacy and 'enjoyment of your possession' and allowing sensible access for the public to such areas of your land. Equally, people also have a responsibility to not trample through 'gardens' and to respect privacy.

 

On the face of it, this is sensible, but it is at heart a simplification that can only poorly serve the current situation. If someone buys a property that encompasses a section of coastline, with areas of public coast adjacent to their property, why should the owner be expected to allow access to their land when the public can enjoy the land next to their property just as much? This, despite your best efforts to portray it otherwise, is not about the relationship between the public and the individual, but about the management of land by Government - specifically the formulation of legislation that ensures no area of outstanding beauty and no single entire stretch of coastline that can be demonstrated to have regular public use on can be built upon or otherwise have access to it restricted.

 

However, IMO, the general principle of having access has to come first

 

Why? Because we're all sons of the soil and possess some kind of spiritual ownership of the land that transcends, and should be reflected in, material laws?

[sarahc]

All property is theft.

See your house? I'm nicking it.

[Albert Tatlock]

All land is owned by someone. IMO, just because a minority of people have vast amounts of money does not give them the moral right to spoil everyone else's enjoyment and remove access to great swathes of land from the general populace.

 

This is blatant, near nonsensical, demagoguery. The issue is to what extent ownership of property entitles the owner to freely enjoy their property without constraint (such as being forced to allow others to enjoy their property), it is not an issue of landowners buying property specifically to "spoil everyone's enjoyment" (I doubt there are many examples of such purchases) and justifying their "moral right" it with their "vast amounts of money".

 

Though people may have 'the deeds' to these areas, nevertheless, the island still belongs to us all in many ways. The island will still be here long after these people are dead and gone.

 

By this reasoning we're all then entitled to take regular shortcuts through your house and have picnics in your garden, since under this reasoning none of us can be regarded as anything more than temporary custodians of the land we possess. Indeed, if we accept your reasoning, the island, far from belonging to "us all", actually belongs to no-one at all, and thus anyone may exercise a right to enjoy whatever scrap of property they fancy. In short, as romantically appealing as your notion is, it's a poor basis for working out the precise details of property rights.

 

Remember, that in many cases, these people who own large areas of land would not actually have such amounts of money if it hadn't been for the rest of the population buying into their ideas, goods, services etc. in the first place.

 

We buy goods and services because we need them, or we regard them as worth the expence of purchasing them, the delivery of the goods and services we buy is all we're due. The idea that producers somehow owe their customers more than what they buy is simply bizarre. If someone empoys your services, are they they then entitled to enjoy the property you've bought with your profits? Of course not.

 

That does not then give them the right 'to buy' the right to diminish people's quality of life, and especially so of they are not from the island in the first place.

 

Again, disingenuity and demagoguery. The right to diminish people's quality of life (apart from being something of an overstatement) is not what this is about. The intent to enjoy something in such a way that others object to is not necessarly the intent to diminish other's quality of life, and the right to enjoy property is not the same as the "right" to diminish others' quality of life.

 

There is always a balance to be had between the right to privacy and 'enjoyment of your possession' and allowing sensible access for the public to such areas of your land. Equally, people also have a responsibility to not trample through 'gardens' and to respect privacy.

 

On the face of it, this is sensible, but it is at heart a simplification that can only poorly serve the current situation. If someone buys a property that encompasses a section of coastline, with areas of public coast adjacent to their property, why should the owner be expected to allow access to their land when the public can enjoy the land next to their property just as much? This, despite your best efforts to portray it otherwise, is not about the relationship between the public and the individual, but about the management of land by Government - specifically the formulation of legislation that ensures no area of outstanding beauty and no single entire stretch of coastline that can be demonstrated to have regular public use on can be built upon or otherwise have access to it restricted.

 

However, IMO, the general principle of having access has to come first

 

Why? Because we're all sons of the soil and possess some kind of spiritual ownership of the land that transcends, and should be reflected in, material laws?

That's the longest way of saying 'I disagree' I've ever seen - well, since your last post anyway.

 

I even had to look up 'demagoguery'.

 

In the meantime - I'm planning to visit the end of the value chain of my local brewery to partake of some finely processed hops and oats, where I will no doubt become excessively inebriated and chat up the local dispenser of liquid refreshment. But there again I might just go down the pub, get pissed and chat up the local barmaid.

[Politician]

My view is probably closer to Vinnie's than to Albert's, but this raises a more fundamental question: should private individuals have been allowed to purchase land encompassing such beauty spots in the first place? And if they have, should the UK Government not consider buying them under a compulsory purchase order for the enjoyment of everyone?

[P.K.]

All land is owned by someone. IMO, just because a minority of people have vast amounts of money does not give them the moral right to spoil everyone else's enjoyment and remove access to great swathes of land from the general populace.

 

This is blatant, near nonsensical, demagoguery. The issue is to what extent ownership of property entitles the owner to freely enjoy their property without constraint (such as being forced to allow others to enjoy their property), it is not an issue of landowners buying property specifically to "spoil everyone's enjoyment" (I doubt there are many examples of such purchases) and justifying their "moral right" it with their "vast amounts of money".

 

Though people may have 'the deeds' to these areas, nevertheless, the island still belongs to us all in many ways. The island will still be here long after these people are dead and gone.

 

By this reasoning we're all then entitled to take regular shortcuts through your house and have picnics in your garden, since under this reasoning none of us can be regarded as anything more than temporary custodians of the land we possess. Indeed, if we accept your reasoning, the island, far from belonging to "us all", actually belongs to no-one at all, and thus anyone may exercise a right to enjoy whatever scrap of property they fancy. In short, as romantically appealing as your notion is, it's a poor basis for working out the precise details of property rights.

 

Remember, that in many cases, these people who own large areas of land would not actually have such amounts of money if it hadn't been for the rest of the population buying into their ideas, goods, services etc. in the first place.

 

We buy goods and services because we need them, or we regard them as worth the expence of purchasing them, the delivery of the goods and services we buy is all we're due. The idea that producers somehow owe their customers more than what they buy is simply bizarre. If someone empoys your services, are they they then entitled to enjoy the property you've bought with your profits? Of course not.

 

That does not then give them the right 'to buy' the right to diminish people's quality of life, and especially so of they are not from the island in the first place.

 

Again, disingenuity and demagoguery. The right to diminish people's quality of life (apart from being something of an overstatement) is not what this is about. The intent to enjoy something in such a way that others object to is not necessarly the intent to diminish other's quality of life, and the right to enjoy property is not the same as the "right" to diminish others' quality of life.

 

There is always a balance to be had between the right to privacy and 'enjoyment of your possession' and allowing sensible access for the public to such areas of your land. Equally, people also have a responsibility to not trample through 'gardens' and to respect privacy.

 

On the face of it, this is sensible, but it is at heart a simplification that can only poorly serve the current situation. If someone buys a property that encompasses a section of coastline, with areas of public coast adjacent to their property, why should the owner be expected to allow access to their land when the public can enjoy the land next to their property just as much? This, despite your best efforts to portray it otherwise, is not about the relationship between the public and the individual, but about the management of land by Government - specifically the formulation of legislation that ensures no area of outstanding beauty and no single entire stretch of coastline that can be demonstrated to have regular public use on can be built upon or otherwise have access to it restricted.

 

However, IMO, the general principle of having access has to come first

 

Why? Because we're all sons of the soil and possess some kind of spiritual ownership of the land that transcends, and should be reflected in, material laws?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....................

 

My view is probably closer to Vinnie's than to Albert's, but this raises a more fundamental question: should private individuals have been allowed to purchase land encompassing such beauty spots in the first place? And if they have, should the UK Government not consider buying them under a compulsory purchase order for the enjoyment of everyone?

What a load of BS in it's purest form.

 

Let me give you the (Tory Party) subtext:

"It's not the fault of the minority with money that they have been able to purchase the fantastic coastline that is actually the heritage of all those who live in these islands, oh no, it's THE FAULT OF THOSE WHO OWNED IT PREVIOUSLY WHO SOLD IT TO THEM!" Oh yes. Errrr, now care to explain how those "who owned it previously" originally managed to get hold of it????????????

 

It's just pathetic. Despite all the squeeling from the (landed, rich, privileged, NIMBY, Conservative-voting) landowners the "Right To Roam" legislation has not produced anything even remotely resembling all their doom and gloom prophecies, which is why this coast access is now, quite rightly in my opinion, being seriously considered. Never mind Politician, The Terminator is on his way.....

[Politician]

Errrr, now care to explain how those "who owned it previously" originally managed to get hold of it????????????

 

PK, you have (as usual) missed the point entirely. Certainly, all privately owned land originally belonged to nobody in particular - in that sense, I suppose you could advance the tired argument that "property is theft".

 

However, the individuals who currently own such land purchased it under the impression that they would be allowed to use it for their private enjoyment, and to decide who did and who did not transgress on their property. It is not for the Government to decide arbitrarily that that decision is now to be taken out of their hands.

 

I don't disagree that the situation needs to be considered carefully, and a balance struck (in any case, one would hope that such landowners would be reasonable in the first place). But it's nowhere near as black-or-white as your rant suggests. Ultimately, your post illustrates more than anything the gulf that exists between those who actually have to take difficult decisions, and those purist ideologues sitting on the sidelines sneering at those who do…

[ballaughbiker]

I agree with Albert T

[Politician]

Let me give you the (Tory Party) subtext:

"It's not the fault of the minority with money that they have been able to purchase the fantastic coastline that is actually the heritage of all those who live in these islands, oh no, it's THE FAULT OF THOSE WHO OWNED IT PREVIOUSLY WHO SOLD IT TO THEM!"

 

Wrong again - if there is a party at fault, it is clearly the underlying system that allows such land to be bought and sold in the first place (with the implied proviso that it may be used solely for private enjoyment).

[Frances]

I'm planning to visit the end of the value chain of my local brewery to partake of some finely processed hops and oats

presumeably not Manx beer which I always understood had to be made from malted barley - oats were in the past fed to horses in England and men in Scotland (to paraphrase Johnson) tho the Manx liked them stewed with buttermilk.

 

I hope similar legislation is passed on the Island as there were a few awkward landowners who prevented the establishment of the coastal path (not for any sensible reason as they lived out of sight of the path) forcing considerable detours in some places.

[Pragmatopian]

I can't see that we struggle for choice as far as accessible beauty spots (coastal or otherwise) are concerned. There is private land and there is public land, but obviously the grass is greener on the private land, and we all consider it our god-given right to poke our noses in. CPOs and other extreme intrusions on the rights of landowners should be confined to the most exceptional of circumstances - this is not the most exceptional of circumstances.

[P.K.]

Errrr, now care to explain how those "who owned it previously" originally managed to get hold of it????????????

PK, you have (as usual) missed the point entirely. Certainly, all privately owned land originally belonged to nobody in particular - in that sense, I suppose you could advance the tired argument that "property is theft".

Your "all property is theft" (I think that is actually the correct quote) is like Cameron's policies - just a smoke and mirrors job.

 

Let me give you the (Tory Party) subtext:

"It's not the fault of the minority with money that they have been able to purchase the fantastic coastline that is actually the heritage of all those who live in these islands, oh no, it's THE FAULT OF THOSE WHO OWNED IT PREVIOUSLY WHO SOLD IT TO THEM!"

Wrong again - if there is a party at fault, it is clearly the underlying system that allows such land to be bought and sold in the first place (with the implied proviso that it may be used solely for private enjoyment).

More BS. There have been rights-of-way across land bought and sold for ages. All that Mr Tory Politician wants to push forward is a case for compensation. The Right to Roam legislation did not have compensation built into it. The landed gentry huffed and puffed about the damage that walkers would do etc etc but in the event it didn't amount to a can of beans. Which means, of course, that after the event there was no case to answer and consequently no compo claims to process. So this time they want compensation paid up front for the non-existant damage that hasn't been done yet. Dream on......

 

I don't disagree that the situation needs to be considered carefully, and a balance struck (in any case, one would hope that such landowners would be reasonable in the first place). But it's nowhere near as black-or-white as your rant suggests. Ultimately, your post illustrates more than anything the gulf that exists between those who actually have to take difficult decisions, and those purist ideologues sitting on the sidelines sneering at those who do…

Now that is a real blunder. In a way it is black and white. You either support the Right To Roam being extended to the coastline or you don't. Who actually owns the land is not terribly relevant to the legislation. As a "politician" you should know that.