New fence in cornbury park

Mon 11 Jan 2016, 14:10

Woodchips would not be a solution and will make the surface worse by holding water, if that is being considered.

Sun 10 Jan 2016, 22:42

Chris, It is great that you can trace your family back seven generations in Charlbury because that pre-dates the Enclosure Act and you may have a legal title to the land. Seriously, we have not heard anything directly from the Estate or a spokesperson about this fence or their future intentions, but by coincidence we have two public opportunities to input further to this debate. Tomorrow there is the AGM of Walkers are Welcome, where we can no doubt discuss whether it is legal and sensible for us to unilaterally make the path safe for walkers and cyclists and Tuesday at midday and 6pm, when the Estate is asking about their plans for Wilderness, where we can quiz them directly about this issue. See you all there.

Sun 10 Jan 2016, 21:46

I have 3 dogs, I usually walk them on other land round Charlbury where I have no problems, when away from roads they are regularly off the leads, they are well trained/friendly & obedient, I have walked along the river etc on Cornbury land in the past & enjoyed it as have my dogs on a warm day when they have played in the water to cool down! I will return to my previous point, 'ON CORNBURY LAND'! There are paths people/dogs/families etc can walk on with no problems, presently due to the weather most tracks/paths etc are muddy, so if the path at Cornbury is difficult to walk on because of the mud & angle of the path, then sorry but don't walk there! As for the grazing etc of Estate animals, again, it is Cornbury land so they can graze their animals wherever/whenever they like on their own land, yes there are other parts of the Estate they can graze their animals, but if they wish to put them by the river & say you can't walk there, then quite frankly, tough, again, who owns the land? Lord Rotherwick isn't saying you can't walk on his land, he is just saying you can't walk there at this time, for whatever reason that may be, but anyone walking there in the past has been trespassing, I can trace my family back 7 generations in Charlbury, but I do not presume this gives me the right to walk wherever I like! As we all know, there are a lot of dog owners in Charlbury that do not clear up their dogs mess, & do not keep their dogs under control, & this is a problem that Cornbury have had in the past with dogs bothering livestock/deer etc. Maybe, some of the things written on here by people have inflamed the situation, & this is one of the reasons that the permanent fence has been put up!

Sun 10 Jan 2016, 21:33 (last edited on Sun 10 Jan 2016, 21:55)

This may help.

Some law

www.environmentlaw.org.uk/rte.asp?id=207

I also have a copy of the "blue book" if anyone wants to borrow it. Not so many Bon Mot as the Little Red Book, but it does clarify the law.

Apologies, I'm sure many of you didn't need to know Jesus was going to service the cooker hood.

Sun 10 Jan 2016, 20:39

It certainly isn't with cornbury

Sun 10 Jan 2016, 19:33

May I suggest moving the path onto the moral high ground, wherever that may be?

It might be just outside the village of Religious Imperative, which may be an equally dangerous place to inhabit.

Sun 10 Jan 2016, 18:30

I suggest that now we can move onto something more productive
Let's not argue any more about why and where the fench is but try to make the path walkable
There are discussions to do this by laying down wood chippings or something similar which would soak up some water and make the path less muddy
Could you help in doing this?

Sun 10 Jan 2016, 14:34

I did this walk on Friday, and at first was surprised to find myself alone on the path on the sunniest day of the week. After squelching through all the mud I was no longer surprised tho' saddened. Ideally the fence should be removed or at least add a gate or stile for use when there is no livestock. (As far as I've observed, the cows were only in there for a week or so when the temp fence was put up.) At the very least the path should be improved and properly maintained eg by adding gravel or sand. The mud is unpleasant for everyone but especially challenging for 3 groups who probably comprise the majority of walkers: dog walkers, families with children and the elderly. Given the importance of walking for health in old age and the increasing pressure on our medical services, this is a vital argument for keeping the path usable.

Sat 9 Jan 2016, 19:06

Bridig, Thanks for the helpful insight into Lord Rotherwicks' thinking - I hope you are right about the possibility of a 'grace and favour' access gate, and I agree that the temporary electric fence with the gates at Southill work well, but to clarify, the Estate is required to include gates there as the designated footpath would be illegally obstructed otherwise. My fear would be that once the mixed woodland is removed nearer North Lodge the new stock fence will be extended to Southill, making a bad situation worse.

Sat 9 Jan 2016, 17:39

I saw Lord Rotherwick a few months ago, asked if the path could be widened (to which he agreed) and suggested that it might include a gate that walkers could use to leave the path when the field was not being used for grazing. He didn't commit himself on that point, but I hoped he might have taken it in. (There is, after all, a gate for walkers at Southill which is kept shut when sheep are in the field beyond the ponds.) He told me that the belt of mixed woodland was to be felled and replanted with broadleaves, which may explain why the fence stops short at that point.

Sat 9 Jan 2016, 13:12

I am sorry that some writers here have defended the installation of this fence. This field has been open as long as anyone can remember; never before has there been any need to install such a fence. So what we are faced with is a major change of use the consequence of which is actually an intrusion into freedoms enjoyed by local people throughout their lives (and their forebears before them).

Enclosure of what was open countryside should not be accepted lightly. This particular field adjacent to the town has always had a special value for Charlbury, and presumably those who have chosen to move big livestock into the field did not realize its significance, or have failed to take this reality into account when deciding where to place their cows. Over and above whatever claims some might wish to make about legal rights, there is always a higher moral responsibility on all of us to try to do everything for the common good. Society falls apart whenever that principle is forgotten.

Sat 9 Jan 2016, 11:32 (last edited on Sat 9 Jan 2016, 12:05)

I agree with Stephen. And if we have to tread so warily to protect the concessions we have (which should of course be appreciated) that Cornbury is beyond criticism, how good is the relationship anyway? Of course it's Cornbury's land, but it's a shame there isn't enough goodwill for the river access to remain to locals, and the path not to be hemmed in when there's plenty of land elsewhere for this livestock. Blenheim seems to function perfectly successfully with loads of public footpaths across the estate.

Sat 9 Jan 2016, 10:45

As I see it the Estate has decided to erect this permanent fence to ensure walkers and cyclists strictly stay on the designated footpath, not to protect them from killer cows. Clearly walkers with and without dogs have to obey the law, but I have argued that a permanent fence is a disproportionate response as there are rarely stock in the field and that a temporary electric fence (as used elsewhere at Southill) would be fine. You are more likely to be struck by lightning than be attacked by a Cow and there is plenty of simple advice about how to safely walk through fields with stock - if all landowners had to fence every path in the way adopted here it would probably be the last straw for UK farming. I would also point out that suggesting that this path is not presently suitable hardly helps the Walkers are Welcome initiative that Charlbury is trying to encourage. This path is the only way to get over the river and access lots of other great walks south of the Town.

Fri 8 Jan 2016, 16:51

Roy and Peter
I find it very annoying when those posting cannot be bothered to read what has already been said.
Therefore I repeat that the purpose of the fence is to prevent walker being in danger from Livestock. The law states 'If you are walking a dog, you must…

Long post - click to read full text

Fri 8 Jan 2016, 11:53 (last edited on Fri 8 Jan 2016, 13:48)

Yes, the estate has every right to limit access to their land. But they also have a legal responsibility to maintain the footpaths that cross that land. Of course the rain has taken its toll, but future predictions are that our climate is going to become wetter and warmer, so unless the route and/or the surface of the path is improved, it will become ever more difficult to walk and cycle at all times of the year. We dog walkers are used to muddy paths - everywhere is muddy at the moment. But this path is particularly unpleasant and difficult to walk on, because of the way that it slopes.

Fri 8 Jan 2016, 11:15

Whilst being in full agreement with those deploring the fencing in of this one path, I feel there is a bigger issue here. As I understand it, Cornbury owns the greater part, if not the whole of the Whichwood Forest, as it exists today. With the exception of a few very restricted footpaths which I believe the estate were forced to provide, when even Parliament got involved some years ago. I am not a communist but I strongly believe that areas of this type that are not producing crops should be open for all to enjoy, provided they do so with respect to the environment. When I lived near Cirencester I remember there was a large privately owned estate with extensive woodland. At each entrance to this land there was a notice which read "You are welcome on foot or on horseback. Please keep your dogs under control and do not remove anything" So far as I was aware this estate suffered little or no damage as a result.

Fri 8 Jan 2016, 10:28

Generations of good Charlbury people have been able to walk through this field enjoying the open sweep of the hills down into the meandering Evenlode valley. The openness which was there before is no more because the heavy fence herds us into a narrow pathway. The experience of being in that space is changed for the worse so of course those who have walked this way feel deeply upset that something that was part of them has been taken away. Many will also remember hours of children's fun in the snow on these slopes; if we have deep snow again future families will not have the opportunity to enjoy this special place. For us the fence is an emotional intrusion into a beautiful countryside right on our doorstep, and that is what we feel isn't right.

Fri 8 Jan 2016, 09:55

The path is still the same width as when the electric fence was there they have just taken out the bushes that ran along the fence to make more room so it feels wider.
With regards Wilderness the footpath isn't used any more than your average bank holiday weekend as the majority use the main drive (I live right next to it) and hopefully it won't be so wet in August, also by then the cows will be back so there will have to be a fence anyway as there was at last years wilderness.

Fri 8 Jan 2016, 09:00

To get this discussion back on track, I argued earlier that the Estate can achieve the same result with an temporary electric fence in the same position as the new fence - it was the narrowness of the previous path that was formed when there was stock in the field last year that dog walkers objected to. There is a meeting next week about the plans for the WIlderness Festival - this public route is used as a link path by thousands during those five days - it is dangerous now, so just imagine what it will be like then.

Thu 7 Jan 2016, 23:22 (last edited on Thu 7 Jan 2016, 23:23)

Blimey, there's some instransigent stuff in here. Cornbury is private land, with a limited number of rights of way over it, which the estate isn't blocking - and members of the public have no business being on tother side of the complained-about fence anyway. The estate is perfectly entitled to look after its own interests in preventing people being where they have no right to be. It's hardly a huge sacrifice for walkers who don't like mud to walk somewhere else until the weatherr improves, and it's hardly the Rotherwicks' fault it's been raining.

Thu 7 Jan 2016, 18:10

There is also the issue of dog walkers who do not pick up their dogs' faeces. These may contain bacteria which contaminate the land and which are harmful to cattle so a fence is required in order to protect those cattle grazed in this field. Surely Lord Rotherwick is entitled to protect his stock?

Thu 7 Jan 2016, 14:07

I would strongly endorse Richards post
As a Cotswold voluntary warden I know that at the moment most footpaths are very muddy but this is due to the very high rainfall recently. As far as this footpath and the fence go I see there is a total misunderstanding of the purpose. I have quite regular contact with the present Lord Rotherwick and I know that the reason for the fence is protect the public from livestock. This can be a real danger particularly if you have a dog. There have been a number of deaths from such incidents elsewhere. therefore to say that he is only doing this as an aggressive landowner is totally untrue.
As Richard says he is in fact very welcoming whenever we ask to walk on the private land such as for the Parish Boundary walk or Wardens walks of which several have been on his private land. I also know that he has in the past and in future plans to improve the surface of many footpaths.
So you should turn your aggression to the Rain God rather than Lord Rotherwick!

Thu 7 Jan 2016, 12:50

Without wanting to pronounce on the fence, I think the characterisation of Cornbury as uncaring is rather (well, very) unfair. They have been very supportive of initiatives such as Walkers are Welcome, the cycle route, the easier diversion around the gatehouse and so on, and in the wider context have been responsive and responsible when noise and traffic issues are raised. There are other estates in nearby towns/villages which act in a much more high-handed and irresponsible way. I understand the feeling about the fence but let's not allow it to cloud wider relations.

Richard (old Barbour with holes in, no spaniel)

Thu 7 Jan 2016, 12:30

Dont have a barbour or a springer but like a lot of people I think the forum is a good way of raising both important & sometimes less important! charlbury matters and helps get things done

Thu 7 Jan 2016, 12:21

Is this what is know as Middle Class War? Instead of NCB donkey jackets, dogs on strings and pamphlets, we know have barbours, springers and web forums!

Thu 7 Jan 2016, 12:12

Symptomatic of Cornbury's plans for other areas around charlbury!?

Thu 7 Jan 2016, 11:46 (last edited on Thu 7 Jan 2016, 11:49)

Landowners need not behave like this: we know others who feel good when they see the public able to enjoy the land (which is in any case often heavily subsidized by public grants). For goodness sake, surely all of us should be able to enjoy these spaces without being fenced in behind barbed wire in this appalling way. Even if some have wandered off the 'official' path in order to enjoy a stroll along the river edge -- so what? Can't these landowners just try to consider the greater good and the wellbeing of the whole community who should be encouraged to enjoy the open space around us? Take down the fence!

Mon 4 Jan 2016, 12:08 (last edited on Mon 4 Jan 2016, 18:01)

I walked there yesterday and was appalled by the state of the path. It is a mass of slippery mud. While that can be put down to the amount of rain we have been having, and the number of people out for walks over the holidays, Steve is right; in the past people would have taken slightly different routes which would have meant a lot less churning. I hope that Cornbury will reconsider, as the footpath is now a danger to anyone who has the slightest difficulty walking, making a walk across the park off limits to many.

Mon 4 Jan 2016, 11:37

As long as IL have lived here (over 40 yrs) I have remained convinced that Cornbury Estate does everything possible to make life difficult for walkers or anyone that does not bring money in. I remember when they deliberately churned up as much mud as possible inside the gate that provides access below Leafield just before Palm Sunday when they are supposed to allow walkers access to the ponds! Despite their protestations nothing has changed to the present day.

Mon 4 Jan 2016, 10:57

By requiring folk to take this channelled route rather than in past (pre-footpath diversion) allowing them to pick a slightly different route to avoid some mud, it will ensure that it remains a slip and fall hazard. This is particularly the case because of the camber and slope of the enclosed path. From the Spring until the Autumn it is also a shared walkers and cyclist route, but in my view, it will now be too dangerous to cycle - particularly with two strands of barbed wire on the top of the stock-fence. I think the Estate should think again and remove the fence - it is a disproportionate response, when all was required was to move a temporary electric fence to this new position when stock are in the field.

Sun 3 Jan 2016, 17:50

A new fence round the edge of the field keeping all walkers in a narrow but very muddy path, seems to have no rhyme or reason to it. The fence stops at the trees so it's not for the benefit of stock in the fields. It seems to be a case of landowners being selfish and possessive.