New Forestry Commission Agreement

[Scott]

I'm not sure exactly what which clause of which Scots Assembly act is relevant

The relevant bit of legislation is the Land Reform Act 2003, which is accompanied by the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.

However, in England and Wales the relevant legislation is CRoW 2000, and orienteering events do not benefit under access rights since Schedule 2 of CRoW explicitly states that these rights "do not entitle a person to be on any land if, in or on that land, he engages in any organised games [...] [or] engages in any activity which is organised or undertaken (whether by him or another) for any commercial purpose".

Unfortunately, I'm not sure the political will exists to introduce something similar to the Scottish system in England and Wales - we don't have the same tradition of open access that the Scots do, and I get the impression that the BMC and the Ramblers are both fairly content with the terms of CRoW. I think the better bet would be to focus any MP-letter-writing specifically on getting the Forestry Commission to reduce their charges.

[MIE]

To be fair to my Forestry Commission office they have pro-rata'd both
the non-refundable booking fee and the competitor fee. They have also
accepted that the competitor fee applies only to those courses using the
Forestry Commission area.

They do, however, appear to look at the map area for the pro-rata allocation
rather than the proportion of the area used (which may in some cases work to
our positive advantage, but in others it may not).

As has been pointed out the fees are only for access, if you need other facilities such
as car parking, start and finish tents, toilets, traders etc. then extra charges MAY be
made,subject to local negotiations. BTW the charge for toilets etc, if made, will be for
the siting of them not the supplying of them.

[IanD]

Not the least iniquitous aspect of the FC charges is that they apply in full even if the FC only supply part of the land used. Many events cross land ownership boundaries.

Ian - what's the source of this information?

I'm looking at a copy of the agreement (called "FINAL") in which it says:

10. Where only part of an event course is on Commission land a pro-rata reduction of the scheduled charges shall be made. The actual reduction shall be negotiated and agreed for each event between the Commission and the event organiser.

As you suggest, many events have multiple landowners, so this is a key point.

Sounds like I have made a mistake on this point - my apologies. I haven't actually had the opportunity to read a copy of this "agreement", but have been relying on hearsay.

[EddieH]

[quote]They do, however, appear to look at the map area for the pro-rata allocation
rather than the proportion of the area used (which may in some cases work to
our positive advantage, but in others it may not).
[/quote]

If that's the norm then that's your get out. Pay a bit more printing costs to extend the area for miles around. Just ensure that there is a small patch outside the FC land that you can get access to and ensure that every course goes there.

[SeanC]

Passing on the costs as a £4 car parking fee would impact less on car sharing families and would alert orienteers unaware of the situation (and make letters to MP's etc more likely).

I can see FC areas being used for district events upwards. I think events at these levels could absorb these costs and survive. Local events at FC areas looks more problematic. However we can afford to be less fussy with local events so we could use non FC areas more frequently, or develop new non-FC small areas.

Clubs currently reliant on FC areas for local events might need some help from neighbouring clubs and BOF to help them develop new areas for local events? Any clubs currently in that situation?

[IanD]

If you want to read the 'agreement' which has provoked this discussion, here it is...

BOF Agreement 2010 - FINAL.pdf

(96.29 KiB) Downloaded 374 times

[Big Jon]

Just flicked through the document - what a heap of jobbie! I pity orienteers south of the border (even more than normal) - remember if you move north to Scotland we don't have to pay the FCS for access - courtesy of the Scottish Access Code - one of the Scottish Government's best actions to date.

[mikey]

The event organiser will recognise the Forestry Commission’s role in hosting the event in any promotional material, web sites and news releases.

I hope every club complies fully with that element of the 'agreement' - especially with regard to increased charges.

[IanD]

However, in England and Wales the relevant legislation is CRoW 2000, and orienteering events do not benefit under access rights since Schedule 2 of CRoW explicitly states that these rights "do not entitle a person to be on any land if, in or on that land, he engages in any organised games [...] [or] engages in any activity which is organised or undertaken (whether by him or another) for any commercial purpose".

Thanks Scott, this is interesting. I assume that legal advice has been taken (probably back in 2000) to confirm that orienteering is not covered? Because using layman's language, I would contend that a standard orienteering event is neither a "game" nor a "commercial activity".

For me, "game" invokes images ranging from a football match to two kids seeing who can throw a stone furthest. Orienteering is a "sport" or "recreation" or "race" but not a "game". The closest non-O thing to an orienteering event is perhaps a bicycle time trail. When I encounter one of these, I think "race", "sport", and sometimes "traffic hazard", but not "game".

A "commercial activity" for me is something seeking to make a profit so that someone can earn a living out of it. The traders in the car park are a "commercial activity", but I don't see an orienteering event as one. Even though we charge an entry fee, so long as that is only going to cover costs and expenses, rather than wages, and any surplus goes to a non-profit-making club, I don't see it as "commercial".

So as a layman, I would argue that orienteering ought to be covered by the CRoW Act. Of course, a layman's view has no value, it's a lawyer's view which counts. Have we asked one?

[greywolf]

DEFRA's "A Strategy for England's Trees, Woods & Forests" (2007) says:
"Community use can take many different forms, from informal arrangements for occasional access by organised groups to formal provision for large numbers of people,
or commercial recreation provision (for example: orienteering, paint-balling, mountain biking, motor sports, pony trekking, survival courses)."
Copies of the above are probably being shredded in favour of some equally mealy-mouthed policy wank more obviously owned by the current regime, but I can't imagine their view of orienteering will change much...

[EddieH]

The late Bob Climie was very much of IanD's opinion, and in the days when Scotland was not devolved used to advocate ignoring the FC and going ahead with events regardless on the grounds that it was publc access publicly owned land.

I suspect that had we not had really good relationships with the local FC in general we might have even tested this.

[IanD]

I suspect that had we not had really good relationships with the local FC in general we might have even tested this.

Well, we no longer have a good relationship with the FC....

[greywolf]

having posted a chunk of the old strategy I thought I might try and find the new one - it's not there yet but the DEFRA forest policy page says:

"Domestic forestry has a key role to play in meeting the government’s priorities of:
* supporting and developing British farming and encouraging sustainable food production...."

so look on the bright side: when Cameron and Clegg have abolished your jobs and given all your money to their banking chums (and relatives), at least there'll be plenty of wood to eat

[EddieH]

Thank Heavens for that

[AndyC]

Mushrooms -they want to clear the woods out but leave lots of brashings and grow mushrooms on the rotting wood