 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 13/09/2009(UTC) Posts: 97 ![Man]( "Man") Location: Whaley
|
Whilst it's great to see Bothomes Hall being rebuilt and used again, I've noticed that fencing is going up all round the adjoining field between the canal and the Goyt.
I've not seen anyone I could ask - so does anyone here know if access for dog walkers etc, is going to be maintained to the field or not? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 20/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 478
Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 2 post(s)
|
I have heard that the new owners of the Hall have tried to prevent walkers coming onto the field by building a fence/wall round it, but everytime they do so, the structure is knocked down by person or persons unknown.
Not sure what the legal standing on this is, as I know for a fact that some people have been walking through and round the field (with and without dogs) for at least 25 years. Whether this means that they now have a legal right to do so or not, I'm not sure.
I believe that there is a slowly growing protest movement against closing of the field. Edited by user 05 November 2011 19:33:54(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/07/2009(UTC) Posts: 794 ![Man]( "Man") Location: furness vale Thanks: 3 times
|
There is a meeting at the Dog and Partridge on Tuesday 22nd to discuss this. 7.30pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 15/06/2009(UTC) Posts: 475 ![Man]( "Man")  Location: Whaley Bridge Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 21 time(s) in 17 post(s)
|
Fedup wrote:
Not sure what the legal standing on this is, as I know for a fact that some people have been walking through and round the field (with and without dogs) for at least 25 years. Whether this means that they now have a legal right to do so or not, I'm not sure.
No it doesn't. Whilst the use of a path by the public for over 20 years is good evidence when applying to have that path added to the Definitive Map the process is not automatic. Far from it as, if the landowner objects, there must be a public inquiry with all the costs of legal representation. And it is not always easy to get people to come forward and prove that they have walker the path. |
The optimist believes that Whaley Bridge is the best place in the world to live. The pessimist fears he might be correct. |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 13/09/2009(UTC) Posts: 97 ![Man]( "Man") Location: Whaley
|
Following on from the meeting last night, the following points were agreed: That we need to provide evidence of 20 years of usage of the paths to get Derbyshire County Council to designate access to the land: That we need to apply for designation of specific paths as a Right of Way: That we shall also attempt to contact the owners of the land and see if some agreement can be reached. There will be a second meeting at the Dog & Partridge, Bridgemont, on Tuesday 6th December at 7:30 pm to assess progress, and to collect in as many evidence forms as possible for taking to the next Derbyshire County Council meeting. Two routes have been agreed as those we shall seek to get agreed / designated as Rights of Way - attached to this post are two maps showing the two routes we are looking to keep open. If you weren't at the meeting last night and want to fill in an evidence form, it can be downloaded from the DCC website at http://www.derbyshire.go...e%20form_tcm44-21467.pdfPlease fill the form in and bring it to the meeting on 6th December. If you can't attend the meeting you can drop your completed form in at the Dog and Partridge any time between now and then. Edited by user 23 November 2011 17:50:31(UTC)
| Reason: Howe the heck do you put line breaks in? File Attachment(s):  Map1.png (1,019kb) downloaded 151 time(s). Map2.png (1,018kb) downloaded 144 time(s). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 01/08/2009(UTC)
Posts: 132
Location: Whaley Bridge
Thanks: 2 times
|
I also have some sympathy for the poor guy who is trying to renovate his house possibly without the knowledge that his new field is a long-established dog toilet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 13/09/2009(UTC) Posts: 97 ![Man]( "Man") Location: Whaley
|
nce wrote:I also have some sympathy for the poor guy who is trying to renovate his house possibly without the knowledge that his new field is a long-established dog toilet. Well it's about slightly more than that, but if you come along to the meeting at the D+P on 6th December you can give us the full details of your argument then :) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 03/09/2010(UTC)
Posts: 170
Location: buggy
Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 9 post(s)
|
nce wrote:I also have some sympathy for the poor guy who is trying to renovate his house possibly without the knowledge that his new field is a long-established dog toilet.
good point....its a shame that there is no where else in the area to take a dog for a walk isnt it!!!!, and when i have walked down that way there is an abundance of dog 'matter' to dodge.
regardless of possibilties of rights of way.....has anyone even spoke to him regarding the issues over the past years hes been renovating....?..
and considering everyone seems to be happy to see a house go up there....and it become a private residence with land....
im not supprised he's built a fence, how would you feel if you had private land....with no right of way listed against it walked over by strangers and their K9 friends...and for 'sumone' to knock down in violation is vandalisim and pretty unfair
a right royal welcome he/she is getting to the area!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/10/2010(UTC)
Posts: 90
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
|
Dogs have walked on this land for years before the current owner bought it. If the owner doesnt like it he shouldnt have bought it. Dog owners dont be scared off and keep using it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 18/04/2011(UTC)
Posts: 105
Location: Whaley Bridge
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
|
By that logic, can I let my dog go in anyone's garden who lives on Mereside Gardens, Meadowfield Estate, Randal Gardens........ get the picture??? What a crazy argument!!! Even if it is shown that there is a public footpath right-of-way, that still doesn't mean that people should use it for dog "walking": seen the canal towpath lately!!! I agree totally with with moogie's sentiments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 01/08/2009(UTC)
Posts: 132
Location: Whaley Bridge
Thanks: 2 times
|
I'd agree with Mr Summers. The land that my house was built on only 4 years ago was also used by dog walkers. I have yet to have anyone kick my fence down and have their dog cr*p on the patio. If they did, I think I would be rightfully upset.
I also think that we are blessed in the area with a lot of land access that makes the effort being put into annoying the owner of Bothomes Hall seem a little excessive. My father, who lives in the wilds of rural Aberdeenshire was amazed at the quantity and quality of public rights of way established around Whaley – we really are very lucky – try walking a dog on Royal Deeside where most of the land is owned by the Queen of the Prince of Wales. It is really necessary to alienate the owner of Bothomes Hall for the sake of a path that was never there in the first place? I speak to a degree from the point of view of a person who was on the receiving end of a measured amount of bloodyminded, proactive alienation from residents and businesses near the site that my house was built on. It's not pleasant to move into an area and discover that you are an inconvenience. Rather than try to push this path ahead, I think he should be left to make an attractive home and be welcomed to the area without hinderance. But that's my opinion, and I realise that it may not be shared.
Incidentally, without any recorded right of way on the land, how was the Bothomes owner supposed to know that his new land was being regularly trespassed (I say 'trespassed' because presumably it had an owner before now who just didn't enforce the boundary?)? I don't know how the law really works in these situations. Scottish law is so much simpler.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 08/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 167
Location: Whaley Bridge
Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
|
Jack wrote:Dogs have walked on this land for years .......... they may very well have but dogs have no 'rights' to anything. As for their keepers are, where they take their hound to do their toilet is subject to laws of the land as someone has so rightly pointed out. Only if it's proven by a court that somewhere has been used for so long that it has 'public right of way' status, can anyone object of that Way has been prohibited. Dogs don't mind where they dock down, I'm sure they won't be sulking because they can't go through Bottoms Hall land. |
Speak your truth quietly and clearly, and listen to others -even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story. |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 01/08/2009(UTC)
Posts: 132
Location: Whaley Bridge
Thanks: 2 times
|
The other thing that is bothering me is the same point brought up by moogie. Rather than having a meeting and submitting applications, has anyone spoken to the owner? Was he invited to the meeting? If not, why not? I hope this isn't adult, council-powered version of school bullying. The wilful damage to fencing certainly looks like there could be a bit of that going on even though I am sure that the meeting participants didn't trash the boundary.
In Switzerland on 6 Dec, but will watch the forum with interest to see what happens. It's certainly an interesting test of the law. Is anyone opening a book on it? :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 01/08/2009(UTC)
Posts: 132
Location: Whaley Bridge
Thanks: 2 times
|
Well, I don't know if anyone else has done this, but I went down to the Hall and spoke to the owner albeit briefly. She's a lovely lady and she and her husband are clearly exasperated by the dog walking issue. We didn't get chance to talk directly about it as it was a 'passing cars blocking roundabout' sort of conversation, but I did get a good look at the site. What they have achieved there is a minor miracle, and they have been lucky to secure a secluded spot below the road. The groundworks thus far are amazing too. They should be congratulated for saving the building and turning it into probably one of the best modern conversions in area.
I was then able to look at the maps posted above with a better idea of context. I have to say that Map 1 is just ridiculous. That path is far too close to the house, and any right-minded person would realise that. Even when there are rights of way that go that close to a property, people usually walk a diversion. There is at least one like that up above Madscar.
Map 2 is more reasonable, and the owner might be encouraged/tempted to put an inner boundary in to keep walkers to the edge of the existing field boundary. But, note that fences of that length are really quite expensive, even for someone who clearly has a decent amount to spend on the hall.
I also have a speculative guess to make. Just from talking to the lady and looking at the vehicle she was driving, I'd be 70-80% sure she intends to put horses on that field. You just can't mix dogs in with horses. If the land search came up negative for access, then she has every right to restrict access now and ensure that she can use the land safety for whatever purpose she has in mind (probably livestock). In that situation, any dual use would require an inner boundary.
I encourage the pro-dog camp to talk to her too. Note that the horse thing is a flying guess, so don't take it as gospel.
N.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Member
Joined: 27/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1
Location: Furness Vale
|
I'm interested in the report of the wall being knocked down. At the time the wall was being built, I was walking past the spot every day. One one particular day, I noticed that the wall had been started, with just a few courses of stones laid (it was easy enough to step over - no need to knock it down). The next day the beginnings of the wall had been dismantled, and very soon afterwards a foundation was laid (it can still be seen). Unless someone knows that the wall was knocked down, I'd have said it was clear that the wall wouldn't have stood without a decent foundation, and that the builder dismantled it. I saw no evidence of foul play. Are we maybe admitting to something that didn't happen, simply because it's feasible that it could?
In response to nce's post about the new homeowner being 'an inconvenience'; there are few better ways of alienating yourself than to move to an area and deprive the locals of a facility they've been using for years, regardless of who's right or wrong. Re post 27 Nov, 14:10:26 - did you invite the woman and her husband to the next meeting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 01/08/2009(UTC)
Posts: 132
Location: Whaley Bridge
Thanks: 2 times
|
Kiff,
Our conversation was held as I backed off her driveway and manoeuvred to get back on the roundabout. She was coming in behind me, and without blocking the A6 for too long, we spoke for about 20 seconds. There was no opportunity to get into specifics, but if one of the 6 Dec attendees wants to go down there, I am sure they will have ample time to invite. They are nice people and will engage for certain.
Regarding the wall, Kiff's point is fair.
Regarding the change of access ... come on, things change all the time. Just because the previous owner failed to enforce the boundary does not mean that access is granted. I am stepping away from this argument now (because it is not constructive), but my final word is that I think that the new owners of Bothomes Hall should be left to develop the property and re-establish the boundary.
Disclaimer: I do not have a dog, I have never walked across the land n question and I don't know the owner, I am not Whaley Bridge BORN AND BRED but my son is. ;-)
N.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 03/09/2010(UTC)
Posts: 170
Location: buggy
Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 9 post(s)
|
Jack wrote:
Dogs have walked on this land for years before the current owner bought it. If the owner doesnt like it he shouldnt have bought it. Dog owners dont be scared off and keep using it.
I wasnt aware we had a pack wild running dogs in the area..........You are in controll of your dog.....then you are making the tresspass ...
Have some respect and stay of the land until it is decided ....you are doing yoursel , and your right of way cause no help at all
ITs not you land is it....as you point out...the OWNER has BOUGHT it.....
empathy is the key in matters like this....then you may get a positive agreed outcome...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 15/06/2009(UTC) Posts: 475 ![Man]( "Man") Location: Whaley Bridge Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 21 time(s) in 17 post(s)
|
Jack wrote:Dogs have walked on this land for years before the current owner bought it. If the owner doesnt like it he shouldnt have bought it. Dog owners dont be scared off and keep using it.
The land upon which the Meadowfield Estate was built used to be agricultural land, frequently crossed by agricultural machinery.. But I doubt if you would defend the right of a farmer to drive a tractor across the gardens now. Once permission to change the of use of land is granted then the rules change. Only public rights of way are sacrosanct The correct time to have objected was when planning permission was first applied for |
The optimist believes that Whaley Bridge is the best place in the world to live. The pessimist fears he might be correct. |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 19/01/2010(UTC) Posts: 821 ![Man]( "Man") Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
|
moogie wrote:
ITs not you land is it....as you point out...the OWNER has BOUGHT it.....
Has anyone bought a TV with a screen greater than 40"
I would like to watch a few films on it, I am sure I must have the right because I have watched television for years, and even better that some here I promise my dog will not poo on it. 
Norm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 13/09/2009(UTC) Posts: 97 ![Man]( "Man") Location: Whaley
|
Just to reiterate one point: as stated in my post #7, one of the agreed outcomes of the meeting was to make contact with the owners of the Hall and try to advance matters through agreement. I've not heard from anyone about where that is up to - it may well be that has already happened. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
