 |
| A very misleading photo as the land being sold is above the mean high water mark, none of which may be in this picture. |
Answers please.
It could be that although the public can't be denied access to the foreshore, the end of the following article suggests that the public can be prevented from "Loitering" on what could become privately owned land. What could this mean? Sounds sinister to the suspicious mind.
- "Although the law allows public access to all beaches, except some owned by the Ministry of Defence, residents along part of the south coast can own the beach front as part of their freehold. Private signs marking roads leading down to the beach, while not preventing public access, can make it difficult.
- The most famous "private" beach in Britain is a small stretch of pebbles at the end of Hove beach, East Sussex, on to which backs a handful of houses including the home of celebrities Zoe Ball and Fatboy Slim - real name Norman Cook. A private property sign instructs members of the public that they "may cross at low tide but may not loiter in front of the houses"."
Why the haste in selling?
18 comments:
Who is selling our heritage around ULVERSTON?
Even Ralph Spours wouldn't handle this one!
ZORO.
Bit of a surprise this since I always understood that the whole of the foreshore between Liverpool and Barrow belonged to the Duchy of Lancaster, i.e. HM the Queen as Duke of Lancaster "owns" it. Zoro I shouldn't bother about your "heritage" being sold, Cumbria council and the local media hijacked that in 1974!
Great to have your comments. Can we have all the factual information posted here please so that we all know what we're talking about. I've just returned from Corrie's Ulverston Office and they "don't know anything about this sale" they are "unable to supply details" and are refering all detailed enquiries to Howard Whittaker who is the auctioneer. More here on that in a few minutes.
Phoning the Barrow Corrie's office results in a similar response "they have no information" are refer enquiries to Whitaker of Brogden St Auction Rooms Ulverston.
They did state that a member of their company is selling the foreshore.
Is this then not likely to be Cavendish?
Answers please.
My approach is to go through our MPs Woodcock and Farron who can occasionally work well together and get them to petition Prince Charles to make his family behave themselves and not sell what we regard as the Crown Jewels which his family hold in trust for all of us. He should instruct the seller to take the foreshore off the market immediately.
My next action is to ask the Evening Mail, West. Gaz. and media what they know.
Mr Dellow,
When you have saved the beech would you please cancel Kepler's first law and move the planet slightly to the left.
Could you also change the shade of blue the sea is,I was thinking of Pantone Blue Turquoise.
Further info from The Duchy of Lancaster website:
"PART OF THE ANCIENT INHERITANCE OF THE DUCHY WAS OWNERSHIP OF ALL FORESHORES IN THE COUNTY PALATINE*. THE DUCHY REMAINS THE MAJOR OWNER OF FORESHORE BETWEEN THE CENTRE POINT OF THE RIVER MERSEY AND BARROW IN FURNESS. THE AREA EXTENDS OVER 50000 HECTARES. HISTORICALLY FORESHORES HAVE NOT BEEN A GREAT PROVIDER OF REVENUE...."
* Despite administrative Cumbria, Furness & Cartmel remain with the County Palatine of Lancaster. (i.e. historic/geographic Lancashire)
Might help!
As a result of this blog and email contacts, several very knowledgable people are revealing a lot of information. Some crucial facts are still being established. In less than a week we plan to put all this together and publish it.
I can say in advance: please don't get sucked in to thinking that you can buy anything of value at this coming auction. You can't buy anything that you haven't got now !
The land being sold is in fact common land and was established and confirmed as such in 1972 - anyone can own common land but it comes with very limited 'rights'. Anyone can own Birkrigg but their privileges would be no greater than ours are now except that they could graze sheep and a few other things that we all accept go with what you can do on common land. Disturb the sky larks at your peril - isn't that right Mr Poole.
One could describe the whole Howard Whitaker project as a scam so beware: don't buy. He's been at it since last October under various guises.
More to follow.
I hope you realise that the royals will soon have another mouth to feed! Please be fair to the poor things.
ZORO
Some people enjoy owning jewels or copies of works of art. I can quite imagine how pleasant it would be to 'own' a strip of land with a sea view. At least, it would be 'the real thing'!
Then ,please, please, Gladys buy a long strip. Then we'd feel safe that we don't have to fear someone coming in and acting 'as if they owned the place' !
Howard W reckons that the Baron de Flemming owned the land in the Middle Ages - does that fit ? then he passed it on to John Poole via the Crown Commissioners - does that fit. Fancy joining such an impressive lineage.
Sorry Geoff. I don't have that sort of money. I don't go in for 'possessions' anyway. But occasionally small plots of land do go on sale to people who like the idea of their little own plot of the Lake District. Frankly I think it is a lot of fuss about nothing. Only time will tell.
Has it ever occurred to you as you work up into yet another blind frenzy about summat and nowt that, very likely, the vendor will insist on a covenant in the deeds to the effect that any strip of beach MUST remain open to the public? No. Thought not.
No 'blind frenzy' this end, Dan. I think we're making the situation as clear as we can. I suggest that anyone would be mistaken to think that they get any privileges with this purchase as has been spelt out in subsequent posts.
What concerned me was that the purchasers might think that they would be getting priveledges as described in Whitaker's misleading literature when in fact they will quickly find out that the locals who have been using this land for centuries (yes some of them are getting on a bit). The latter will totally ignore any attempts to remove their priviledges on what they see as 'their' beach.
What may be being ignored is that with ownership comes responsibilities: for example if irresponsible elements of the public leave broken glass on the beach, then the owner would then become liable for injury incurred by other members of the public coming later.
In the past the 'locals' have been very assertive in maintaining their 'rights'- something that is bound to continue.
We were walking along the foreshore the other day, and got talking to the woman in the wooden house there, they've been there 20 yrs apparently. We noticed they had piles of wood lying around the foreshore in front of their house.They said they were buying the bit just outside their house, so they could carry on leaving there stuff there. She said it didn't really enable her to use it for anything they weren't already, but they didn't want someone else to buy it who might complain.In the conversation she mentioned the the chap selling the buts of foreshore was going through an expensive divorce which is why he was selling. It sounded to me like these bits of foreshore are already privately owned ?
Diana Merrick
Thanks Diana: After a bit of probing we managed to get a fairly complete picture of what has been happening which is given in the next post "Sale of the Furness Foreshore"
Basically, yes this common land was in private ownership which is highly unusual because until 18 months ago, nearly all the UK foreshores like this one were owned by the Crown Estates. However at this time, John Poole was sold the five mile stretch that was finally all sold at the auction last Thursday. Yes common land can be in private ownership which in practice gives the purchaser very few priviledges and a lot of responsibilities( why indeed did the Crown Estates sell it enabling greedy people to squabble over getting something no one else owned - our beeches. In practice only fools would buy it other than to sell it on to even bigger fools who want to believe they are top of the fool pile. Sadly they will learn in time from the public that it's not much fun being top fool and being given a lot of agro. I suspect John Fox who owns one of the plots will keep the rest in order. The plots are after all regulated by English Nature because as well as binf common land they are Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
I have been persuaded that the locals can be relied upon to assert what they see as their rights and God help anyone who tries to stop them.
Planting exotic fruit trees and stopping parties indeed: who is going to police them?
Post a Comment