New Forestry Commission Agreement

[roadrunner]

However, I still take issue with the fact that we pay anything at all for white and yellow runners who are just on publically accessible tracks and paths and do not stray on to the heath or into the forest at all.

But you don't pay anything for them unless they take the numbers across one of the thresholds - 25, 99 (except Level D), 249 and so on. So you've got to be pretty unlucky if the runners on White and Yellow make any difference at all. At three of my club's recent events (not necessarily on FC land), we had:
White+Yellow 25, Other courses 101, Total 126
White+Yellow 30, Other courses 27, Total 57
White+Yellow 43, Other courses 373, Total 416
so all of these very different events would have paid the same with or without the White and Yellow course runners (though admittedly the second one would have almost scraped into the "no levy" category without them).

[Scott]

Yes, it's a much better deal that what we were originally offered - well done to our negotiators. Still, I would much rather have seen a per capita charge than this tiered approach. I suppose this system is simpler to administer, but I guess it means that an event with 499 pre-entries won't be taking any EOD

[ryeland of doom]

From the SOA site

"Forestry Commission Agreement - clarification

British Orienteering have confirmed that the agreement publicised on their website does NOT apply to Scotland. Colin Matheson will be picking up on the outstanding matter of access agreement with Forestry Commission Scotland when he starts later this month. "

Negotiations - does this mean we are to be screwed as well, or are we protected by the Land Reform Act?

[AndyC]

I think you can take it that you will be screwed no worse than the rest of us and with Colin involved it may well be better

[ryeland of doom]

Can they charge at all. Earlier in the thread when, they were trying to slap a £3 tax on our children, there was an implication that they could go forth and multiply.

Mind the wholesale sell off of the English estate is the big worry now.

[Monte]

'Land and property sales' are easy to see on the Forestry Commission homepage for Scotland but there is no similar category for England or Wales. I couldn't even find the appropriate section after a quick search around. Any guesses as to why they've been hidden?

[ryeland of doom]

Sorry, should have posted the link to Clegg (of all names) the agent.
http://www.johnclegg.co.uk/

[widdershins]

I had emailed BOF before Xmas to ask them to clarify whether they thought the agreement was applicable to Scotland.

>> Negotiations - does this mean we are to be screwed as well, or
>> are we protected by the Land Reform Act?

My assumption is that we are protected by legislation. But looking at the E&W agreement, there are provisions re easy notification for small events under 25 people. So, there are perhaps discussions still to be had with the FC re the process and timescales for agreeing events on FC land in Scotland

[graeme]

As far as access is concerned, we're protected by legislation. Orienteering is mentioned explicitly in the Access code.

SCOTTISH OUTDOOR ACCESS CODE
Part 2 ACCESS RIGHTS
What you can do under access rights
2.7 ‘Recreational purposes’ is defined in the legislation. It is taken to include:
• active pursuits, such as walking, cycling, horse riding and carriage driving, rock
climbing, hill-walking, running, orienteering, ski touring, ski mountaineering,
caving, canoeing, swimming, rowing, windsurfing, sailing, diving, air sports and
wild camping; and
• participation in events, such as walking or cycling festivals, hill running races,
mountain marathons, mountain biking competitions, long-distance riding events,
orienteering events and canoeing competitions.

But once your event reaches a certain size...

If you are organising an event, it is good practice to liaise with the relevant
land managers. You need to obtain the permission of the relevant land manager(s) if your event:
• needs new or temporary facilities and services (such as car parking, fencing,
signs, litter bins, marked courses or toilets); or
• due to its nature or to the number of participants or spectators, is likely, to an
unreasonable extent, to hinder land management operations, interfere with other
people enjoying the outdoors or affect the environment.

... and now its not free any more. They may charge a "reasonable admin fee" for giving permission.
"Unreasonable extent" is undefined and, I think, untested in law. A landowner who just says "no" or demands £500 "admin fee" is surely acting illegally, but you'll probably have to spend a year in court to get anywhere.

Note the "marked course" means you can't even get away with having all your facilities off-site, but you can cross parcels of access land, (including golf fairways, but not greens or while golf is in progress) without permission provided you don't disturb anyone and there are no controls in that bit. This is crucial for Urban races where there may be thousands of "landowners".

For the FC, it should be in the interests of both sides to have a low-admin permission process.

Having the law on your side is one thing, enforcing it quite another. When did you last consider prosecuting someone for stealing a control?

[Red Adder]

I've not considered prosecution though when about 8 controls were moved /stolen at our last event I did think seriously about giving the perpetrator the Edward II treatment with the rusty end of an SI post (unheated - I'm not that barbaric and anyway we didn't have a camp fire) if we've actually found out who it was.

[ryeland of doom]

[quote="Red Adder" anyway we didn't have a camp fire[/quote]

Revenge is a dish best served cold.