Wild campers set to find out if they're banned from Dartmoor after wealthy couple's bid to keep public off their land
Wild campers are set to discover if they can continue to enjoy the scenic beauty of Dartmoor as a long-running legal dispute comes to a head on Wednesday.
Landowners Alexander and Diana Darwall are challenging a Court of Appeal ruling which says that members of the public have the right to wild camp in the national park of Devon.
In recent years, the right to pitch a tent in the wilderness and enjoy an evening among nature has prompted a fierce debate, with Labour once promising it would legislate for a right to wild camp in all national parks.
In the case of Dartmoor, a 368-square mile area that features 'commons' (land that the public has specific rights to use), camping had been assumed to be allowed since 1985 under the terms set out under the Dartmoor Commons Act.
While wild camping is allowed in large parts of Scotland, Dartmoor marked the only place in England that such an activity was allowed without requiring permission from a landowner.
Mr Darwall, a multi-millionaire hedge fund manager, purchased the 4,000 acre Blachford estate in southern Dartmoor in 2013. He and his wife keep cattle on part of the land which is called Stall Moor, and have argued that campers cause problems to livestock and damage the natural surroundings.
Commenting on the case, Mr Darwall had previously said that many campers do not observe the 'leave no trace' principle, and that campfires can cause 'habitat destruction' or 'devastating damage' if it turns into a wildfire.
The case hinges on whether wild camping can be classified as open-air recreation. In the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, it states that the 'public shall have the right of access to the commons on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation'.
Lawyers for the Darwalls have argued that the nearly 40-year piece of legislation means that it only provides access for walking and riding.
This is strongly contested by lawyers representing the Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA), who have said that the phrase 'on foot' means access should be pedestrian and not by means of a vehicle.
The DNPA have also disputed the concerns of damage caused by camping, describing the reported impact to land and vegetation as 'absurd'.
In written submissions, Richard KC said: 'The suggestion that merely erecting a tent for backpack or wild camping damages the land and vegetation is absurd.
'Erecting a tent for backpack or wild camping for a night or two would do no such damage.'
Since launching his campaign to ban wild campers from his estate, thousands of campaigners have joined a protest movement asserting their right to camp freely around the beauty spot.
During the first stage of their legal battle in January 2023, the Darwalls won their High Court case, which ruled that the law did not give people the right to pitch tents overnight without landowners' permission.
However, just months later the Court of Appeal overturned this decision, finding the law gave people 'the right to rest or sleep on the Dartmoor Commons, whether by day or night and whether in a tent or otherwise' as long as byelaws are followed.
The Darwalls were then allowed to pursue their case in the Supreme Court, with a final ruling expected on Wednesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wales Online
2 hours ago
- Wales Online
The £6bn rail line argument that masks what you should be really angry about
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info Over the last few days, there has been one hot topic in the world of Welsh politics - a train line which will run between Oxford and Cambridge. Given these two cities are roughly 200 miles from Wales, you can be forgiven for asking why. East West Rail is a railway project which will link Oxford and Cambridge at an estimated cost of £6.6bn. Any money spent on it will trigger extra payments to Scotland and Northern Ireland so they can spend it on their transport systems. But, just as has been the case throughout the HS2 debacle, there won't be any extra money for the Welsh Government. The reason for this is both incredibly simple and reasonable on the surface but devillishly complicated and truly unfair beneath it. It may not necessarily be a scandal in itself. But it symbolises everything that is wrong with how rail funding is allocated in England and Wales. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here On the face of it, this issue isn't linked to the spending review that has been happening in Westminster for the last six months or more and of which chancellor Rachel Reeves will stand up in the Commons on Wednesday and deliver the conclusion. Yet it helps shed a light on why that will be enormously complex to understand and why the real story may not be the one you read in headlines that evening. So bear with us while we go through it. The fury from politicians Opposition politicians in Wales have been fulminating about East West rail. They say that the rail line should have been classified as an England-only project like Crossrail so that the Welsh Government would get a guaranteed share. Lib Dem MP David Chadwick said Wales will lose out to the tune of between £306m and £363m as a result. Describing it as another HS2, he said: "Labour expects people across Wales to believe the ridiculous idea that this project will benefit them, and they are justified in not giving Wales the money it needs to improve our own public transport systems. 'It's a disgrace, and it shows there has been no meaningful change since in the way Wales is treated since Labour took power compared to the Conservatives." Plaid Cymru's leader Mr ap Iorwerth took a similar tack, telling plenary: "For all the talk of the UK Government acknowledging somehow that Welsh rail has been historically underfunded, this is some partnership in power." Yet, while there's a lot of truth to what they're saying, it's also much more complicated. Which is where the spending review comes in. Comparability factors There will be so many numbers in the paperwork that accompanies Wednesday's spending review that finding the most important ones isn't straightforward. Yet if you want to know just how much of the England and Wales transport pot is going to be sucked into paying for massive rail projects in England like HS2 (£66bn) or East West rail (£6bn) or all the tram/train projects being promised in England outside London (£15bn), then look out for the overall transport comparability factor for Wales. Very simply, this is the number that the Treasury uses to work out how much the Welsh Government should get for every £1 it spends on transport in England. The reason everyone has been so, so angry about HS2 and the massive billions being poured is that back in 2015, Wales used to get a comparability factor of 80.9%. Yet when the number crunchers in Horse Guards Road sat down to work out how much the Welsh Government should get at the last spending review in 2021, that comparability factor fell to just 33.5%. Ouch. For every £1 spent on transport by Westminster, since the last spending review the Welsh Government has received a population adjusted share (5%) of 33.5%. Or about 1.6p. For context, it used to be around 4p. If Mr Chadwick and Mr Iorwerth are right and the UK government plans to plough even more money into rail in England in the coming years on projects like HS2, East Coast and what the Tories used to call Northern Powerhouse rail, then the new comparability factor that the Treasury mathematicians will conjure up this time could be even lower. But even that is massively misleading. Because if the UK government also promises to plough vast sums into rail in Wales then the comparability factor for the Welsh Government would not rise - it would fall further still. Is your mind boggling yet? We said it was complex. What the Welsh Government wants Because the Welsh Government isn't responsible for rail infrastructure spending, the transport comparability factor really just reflects how much money is going on rail. The less that's spent on rail, the higher a share of the overall transport pot the Welsh Government gets. The more that goes on rail, the lower a share of the overall transport spot the Welsh Government gets. The real problem for Cardiff Bay then is not the comparability factor. Neither is it the fact that East West rail isn't classified as England-only. The problem, as far as the Welsh Government is concerned, is the fact that the England and Wales rail pot itself isn't shared fairly. HS2 and East Coast rail are the symbols of a system that is broken that pours vast sums into English rail projects while Wales misses out. Even if they were classified as England-only, the money would go to the Welsh Government which isn't responsible for rail infrastructure spending. "The way that the system operates at the moment—for years I've been saying—is redundant," Wales' transport minister Ken Skates has said. "The east-west line, which has been in development, I believe, for around about 20 years now, is part of the rail network enhancements pipeline, where everything in a large footprint, a substantial footprint, including Wales, is packaged together. "Where you have all schemes in England and Wales packaged together in what's called the regional network enhancement pipeline it means that projects in Wales are always going to be competing on the business case with projects in affluent areas of the south-east, of London. That means that we are at a disadvantage. "I want to see it change. I've been saying it for years. There's nothing new in this story. I've been saying that we need reform for years and suddenly people have woken up to it." Wales' First Minister Eluned Morgan has said the same. "What we have is a situation where there is a pipeline of projects for England and Wales. Are we getting our fair share? Absolutely not. Are we making the case? Absolutely." "I've made the case very, very clearly that, when it comes to rail, we have been short-changed, and I do hope that we will get some movement on that in the next week from the spending review," she said. What does this mean for the spending review When Rachel Reeves stands up in the Commons on Wednesday, we fully expect she will announce some funding for rail in Wales, as you can see in our piece here, and our expectation is that will be about the rail stations earmarked in the work by Lord Burns after the M4 relief road was axed. They would be in Cardiff East, Parkway, Newport West, Maindy, Llanwern and Magor. But what matters is how much and when - and how that compares to the money being spent in England. Imagine the chancellor announces a few hundred million pounds for those rail stations in Wales in the spending review, what we do not - and will likely not know for many years - is whether that amount is a fair reflection of the mass spending she has announced in England because we know she has also touted £15bn of improvements in England. It will likely take years for academics to assess what kind of share of the rail pot has been spent in Wales. In the past, it certainly has not been fair. In 2018, a Welsh Government commissioned report by Professor Mark Barry estimated that the Network Rail Wales route, which covers 11% of the UK network, received just over 1% of the enhancement budget for the 2011-2016 period. In 2021, the Wales Governance Centre told MPs on the Welsh affairs select committee that had rail been fully devolved to the Welsh Government, Wales would have received an additional £514m for enhancements via Network Rail had rail infrastructure been devolved as it is in Scotland. So when Leeds West and Pudsey MP Ms Reeves gets to her feet in the Commons on Wednesday, you can pretty much guarantee there will at least one or two headlines relevant Wales. But we may not understand what they really mean for a while yet and East West rail won't help us understand either.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Post Office compensation chief steps down after Sir Alan Bates raised 'serious concerns' about schemes
A Post Office boss who backed compensation for Horizon IT scandal victims has left his position as Sir Alan Bates raised 'serious concerns' about schemes. Leader of the Post Office's Remediation Unit, Simon Recaldin, is believed to have opted for voluntary redundancy and left his post this week. It comes as the first part of a public inquiry report into the controversy, analysing the compensation process as well as the affect on victims, is anticipated to be released in the coming weeks. More than 900 sub-postmasters were prosecuted between 1999 and 2015 after faulty accounting software made it look as though money was missing from their accounts. Hundreds are still waiting for payouts despite the previous government announcing that those who have had convictions quashed are eligible for £600,000. A Post Office spokesperson said yesterday Mr Recaldin's departure was a part of an 'organisational design exercise' across the firm. Now Joanne Hanley, who was previously a managing director and global head of client servicing, data and operations for Lloyds', is understood to have taken up a large portion of the former Post Office chief, according to The Telegraph. It comes as Post Office hero Sir Alan Bates accused the government of running a 'quasi kangaroo court' payout system for the scandal's victims last month. More recently, Sir Alan said he would prefer to see the compensation schemes thrown out rather the people working on them. 'We have got serious concerns about the transparency and the parity across the schemes,' he told The Telegraph. Last November, Mr Recaldin giving evidence to the inquiry, apologised after it was unearthed staff who were managing compensation claims had also been embroiled in prosecutions relating to the scandal. When queried about ex Post Office investigators he said: 'So my regret – and it is a genuine regret – is that when I came in, in January 2022, that I didn't do that conflicts check, check back on my inherited team, and challenge that.' It comes as the Sir Alan, who famously won his High Court battle with the Post Office in 2019 revealed that he had been handed a 'take it or leave it' compensation offer of less than half his original claim. Mr Bates, 70, said the first offer, made in January last year, was just one sixth of what he was asking for, adding that it rose to a third in the second offer. He has now been given a 'final take it or leave it offer' - which he said amounts to 49.2 per cent of his original claim. He, alongside 500 other sub-postmasters, will now have to lodge their bid for compensation via the Group Litigation order, managed by the Government. Bates, who led the sub-postmasters' campaign for justice, attacked the government for reneging on assurances given when the compensation schemes were set up The Post Office currently manages the Horizon Shortfall Scheme, which is seperate to the aforementioned. This scheme was organised for victims who have not been compensated but believe they experienced financial loses due to the IT scandal. A Post Office spokesman said: 'As part of the Post Office's commitment to deliver a 'new deal for postmasters', we have undertaken a review of our operating model to ensure we have the right structure in place. 'We have been in consultation with a number of colleagues from across the business, including the Remediation Unit. As a result of this Post Office-wide organisational design exercise, Simon Recaldin has left the business.'
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Sarah Vine's new book isn't just the most riveting political memoir for years, says A.N. WILSON: It's also deliciously entertaining proof that the class divide still runs though British society like a poisonous thread
Does social class matter? Does it even still exist? Most of us would say that for most of the time, class is a thing of the past. The hereditary peers will soon no longer sit in the House of Lords. Senior politicians seem to be drawn from all classes and ethnicities. If the Deputy Prime Minister is Angela Rayner, a former teenage mum from a Stockport council estate, then the class system is surely dead and buried.
