‘Losing the right to wild camp on Dartmoor would have been unthinkable'
Jolyon Chesworth is fondly remembering the last time he wild camped on Dartmoor with his family. His children Max and Barney were running around, climbing rocks and swimming in pools. They were, he says, truly free.
'That sense of adventure and connection to the landscape is so important,' says Chesworth. 'The simple act of finding a place to sleep, having something to eat and just chatting together in almost unimaginable space… they absolutely love being on Dartmoor.
'So the potential loss of all these incredible benefits would have been unthinkable.'
Yet such a loss was, until last week, something Chesworth and many families like his were preparing for.
So they were overjoyed when the Supreme Court backed wild camping on Dartmoor, marking the end of a long argument about whether pitching a tent under the stars in the Devon national park was permissible and, possibly, the start of a wider debate about what public access might mean in other parts of the country.
There is no general right to wild camp on most private land in England, but an exception was made for set areas of Dartmoor Commons in 1985. Over the decades, it's become a haven for Duke of Edinburgh's Award trips and the famous Ten Tors challenge.
For Chesworth, wild camping in the area has offered 'an opportunity to connect to nature, and to people past, present and future who are doing the same thing'. Campaigners, meanwhile, say the battle raises a wider problem over access rights.
The legal wrangle over the park began in 2022, when landowners Alexander and Diana Darwall challenged the right to wild camp on their 4,000-acre estate on Stall Moor.
They noted the 'potential harm' caused by campers, including litter, fires and threats to their livestock. But the crux of their case hinged on whether a specific section of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 conferred on the public a right to camp there overnight.
Campaigners were quick to take note. Lewis Winks, from the group Right to Roam, recalls a handful of activists gathering in a Devon pub shortly afterwards to plot their response.
'We called our campaign The Stars Are for Everyone, because as Devon locals we made use of these wild camping rights regularly – I took my daughter up on Stall Moor and she loved it,' he says. 'It seemed absolutely ludicrous that somebody should be able to snatch that away.'
Winks adds there was widespread belief among campaigners that the Darwalls' case would collapse. 'There were many people… who just didn't think Dartmoor was going to be lost,' he says.
But it was. In January 2023, a High Court ruling set out that the 1985 Act 'does not confer on the public any right to pitch tents or otherwise make camp overnight on Dartmoor Commons'.
'Any such camping requires the consent of the landowner,' the ruling stated.
'It was at this moment we really saw a lot of people stand up and say, 'this is a tragedy',' says Winks. 'Actually it had far-reaching effects beyond the Darwalls' estate. It meant a loss of wild camping rights across the whole of Dartmoor as they had existed.'
A week after the High Court ruling in 2023, thousands of people met on Stall Moor to protest. Meanwhile the Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA) had to work quickly with other landowners to put in place agreements to license their land for use by wild campers.
Basically, the DNPA had to pay the landowners to allow people to camp.
'It was fairly panicked,' says Winks. 'Long term it would have been unworkable as a system, too, because of all the individual licences. The issue for us was that permission couldn't be a replacement for rights.'
Dr Kevin Bishop, chief executive of DNPA, remembers that time slightly differently. 'It was testament to some of the Commons owners that we managed to develop that system so quickly – and it was mainly so we could get Ten Tors to go ahead, which the majority of landowners wanted,' he says.
'There were some who thought that system would be fine going forward, but it was always clear to us that the Commons Act creates a right of access on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation. We've always interpreted open-air recreation broadly, whereas the Darwalls didn't.'
So the DNPA appealed, with the support of other campaign groups such as the Open Spaces Society (OSS) in 2023. Kate Ashbrook, general secretary of the OSS, knows more about access on Dartmoor than most; in 1985 she was Anthony Steen MP's research assistant as he piloted the Dartmoor Commons Bill through Parliament.
'In every other legislation that grants access, you get a schedule of things that the access doesn't include, and camping is usually listed,' she says. 'So for it not to be listed in the Dartmoor Commons Act was an indication that it should be permitted. For us, it was as simple an argument as that.'
The other reason the OSS and others were concerned was that the terminology used in the High Court ruling could have had ramifications way beyond wild camping.
It might have led to a situation where open-air recreation on Dartmoor was restricted to activities undertaken while on foot or in the saddle. Bathing, sketching, rock climbing, even bird watching or fishing could have been seen as trespass.
As Bishop puts it, at the extreme end of this interpretation, 'you couldn't even have stopped for a picnic'.
The general consensus is that some of these interpretations were so farcical, they actually helped the appeal. And in July 2023, the Appeal Court ruled that the law 'confers on members of the public the right to rest or sleep on the Dartmoor Commons, whether by day or night and whether in a tent or otherwise… provided the bylaws are adhered to'.
But, in turn, the Darwalls themselves immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, with the first hearings taking place in October 2024.
In written submissions their legal representatives said the couple were 'not motivated by a desire to stop camping on Dartmoor'. Instead, they talked of campers not observing the 'leave no trace' rule and campfires leading to habitat destruction.
Is there merit in at least some of these arguments? The last time Chesworth was wild camping on Dartmoor, he remembers being woken by fireworks at 3.30am. The next day, his boys picked up the revellers' rubbish on their way back home.
'With this sense of freedom and access comes responsibility and a need for stewardship,' he says. 'One of the reasons I like taking my children out there is that it teaches them that responsibility. It's like school, but more fun.
'What I would say though is that there's a big distinction between wild, backpack camping and fly camping, where people are bringing family tents and disposable barbecues and pitching up at the edge of a car park.'
On local forums, there is much speculation that it is 'townies' who are going to Dartmoor with their crates of beer and fireworks and wrecking it.
Right to Roam says it is aware that encouraging wider access to natural spaces does come with the potential for abuse.
That's why the group developed the concept of 'Wild Service', where responsible access means respecting privacy, crops and nature while seeking to leave a positive trace and practising deep care for the natural world.
The Darwalls, for their part, remain unconvinced that access translates to guardianship.
The couple said they were 'disappointed' by the Supreme Court's judgment. 'Hollowing out the role of landowners and farmers will not improve the vitality of the Dartmoor Commons,' they said. 'Our aim from the outset was to protect and preserve Dartmoor, its flora and fauna.'
Meanwhile, others are keen to see the outcome set a precedent for the rest of England. In opposition, Labour pledged to create a widespread right to roam policy if elected but U-turned after facing opposition from some landowners.
The OSS and Right To Roam are now calling on officials to 'step up' and pass an act that can protect and extend public rights of access to nature across England. If wild camping is allowed on Dartmoor, then why not elsewhere, they argue.
'If Darwall vs Dartmoor is to be a truly landmark decision, the Government must act to ensure a right to sleep under the stars applies to all national parks and wild country,' says Ashbrook.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Ministers ‘abusing' anti-terror laws against Palestine activists
Former Scottish first minister Humza Yousaf has said the Government is 'abusing' anti-terror laws against pro-Palestine activists as tens of thousands of protesters marched in London. A protest organised by groups under the Palestine Coalition banner marched to Whitehall from Russell Square in central London on Saturday afternoon. Organisers estimated that 350,000 people attended the protest, with those marching waving Palestinian flags and chanting 'free, free Palestine' and 'stop bombing Iran'. Many protesters chanted 'shame on you' as they walked past dozens of counter-protesters, organised by pro-Israeli group Stop The Hate, near Waterloo Bridge. The Metropolitan Police said a person was arrested after a bottle was thrown towards the counter-protesters. They added that 'a group appeared on Waterloo Bridge trying to block traffic' following the protest, with officers intervening to clear the road. The demonstrations come after reports on Friday that the Home Secretary will ban Palestine Action after the group vandalised two aircraft at RAF Brize Norton. Yvette Cooper has decided to proscribe the group, making it a criminal offence to belong to or support Palestine Action, after footage posted online showed two people inside the RAF base, with one appearing to spray paint into an aircraft's jet engine. Addressing crowds at the national march for Palestine in Whitehall, former SNP leader Mr Yousaf said: 'While we stand a stone's throw from Downing Street, let's make it clear to the Prime Minister: You try to intimidate us with your anti-terror laws by abusing them, but you'll never silence us as we speak out against the genocide that you're supporting. 'We're not the terrorists – the ones that are literally killing children, they are the terrorists.' A pro-Palestine protester said it was 'absolutely horrendous' that the Government is preparing to ban Palestine Action. Artist Hannah Woodhouse, 61, told the PA news agency: 'The Government, since yesterday, have said they're also going to start to try to proscribe peace activists who are trying to take action against the genocide – so Palestine Action are now being targeted by our Government, which is absolutely horrendous.' Ms Woodhouse, who is from London, added: 'Counter-terrorism measures, it seems, are being used against non-violent peace protesters. 'The peace activists are trying to do the Government's job, which is to disarm Israel. The duty of any government right now is to disarm a genocidal state.' Musician Paloma Faith told pro-Palestine campaigners that she would not 'stick to music and stay away from politics'. Speaking to crowds at the march, the songwriter, 43, added: 'Those who facilitate these crimes against humanity need to be made accountable, not those of us who are compassionate and humane enough to stand against it.' Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn told protesters that politicians were seeking to 'turn people who protest against the invasion of Iran or the occupation of Palestine into terrorists'. Some protesters were carrying Iran flags, with others hoisting signs – distributed by the Islamic Human Rights Commission – that read 'choose the right side of history' alongside a photo of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Human rights group Liberty said banning Palestine Action 'would be a huge step change in how counter-terror laws are applied'. Sam Grant, its external affairs director, said in a statement: 'Targeting a protest group with terrorism powers in this way is a shocking escalation of the Government's crackdown on protest and we urge the Home Secretary to rethink. 'It's clear the actions of Palestine Action don't meet the Government's own proportionality test to be proscribed as a terrorist group, but the consequences for the group's supporters if ministers go ahead would be heavy – with things like wearing their logo carrying prison sentences. 'This move needs to be viewed in light of the sustained crackdowns on protest we have seen from successive governments over recent years, and the worrying fact that there are more and more non-violent protesters spending years in prison.' The Palestine Coalition is comprised of a number of different groups, including the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Stop The War.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Keir Starmer must end the injustice of indefinite sentences today
It is scarcely believable that there are still 2,614 people in prison in Britain serving indefinite sentences under legislation that was repealed 13 years ago – at a time when other prisoners are being released early because the jails are full. The government is now being given the chance to end this monstrous injustice – and to ease prison overcrowding – by adopting a plan drawn up by Lord Thomas, the former lord chief justice. Indeterminate sentences were brought in under the last Labour government as an exceptional measure for prisoners considered too dangerous to release without special safeguards. But Labour peer David Blunkett, who introduced the legislation, said that many more such sentences were handed out than he had intended, and the policy was the 'biggest regret' of his career. The sentence was abolished by the coalition government, but existing prisoners continued to be subject to the stringent rules, not knowing whether they would ever be released and, if they were, being recalled to prison for minor offences. Thus, there have been a succession of terrible cases reported by The Independent, including those of Leroy Douglas, who has served almost 20 years for stealing a mobile phone, and Abdullahi Suleman, who is still inside 19 years after he was jailed for stealing a laptop. Plainly, there is more to their stories than this, and the Parole Board does need to be sure that those who are released are unlikely to be a danger to the public. But it cannot be right that, had they committed their crime a day after indeterminate sentences were abolished, they would have long been freed. What makes it worse is that other prisoners, some of whom pose a greater risk to the public than they do, are being let out early to free up prison places. As we report today, Lord Thomas has led a panel of experts in drawing up proposals to give every prisoner serving an imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentence a release date within two years, and to recall them only as a last resort. James Timpson, the prisons minister and Labour peer, should accept this workable and detailed plan and seek to close this shameful chapter in the history of British criminal justice. Presumably, the only reason that he has not acted to end this scandal already is that Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, is reluctant. Having been forced to order the early release of prisoners to avoid the police having to let criminals go because there is nowhere to put them, she does not want to hand further ammunition to ignorant critics who accuse her of being soft on crime. She has shown courage in taking the difficult measures forced on her by the irresponsibility of Conservative ministers, who allowed prisons to reach crisis point. She should show some more bravery in doing the right thing, which can even be sold, in part, as another emergency measure to free up prison places. If she will not do it, Sir Keir Starmer should instruct her to. He is the law and order prime minister, the former director of public prosecutions, who understands the criminal justice system better than any minister. He cannot allow this injustice to continue and must act on Lord Thomas's recommendations. We understand that the prime minister has taken to asking officials with increasing frequency, as he gets to grips with the frustrations of trying to deliver change: 'Why not today?' Why, we should ask him, not put an end to this scandal today?
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Latest polling says if an election was held tomorrow Reform UK would win a majority
Since the local elections Reform UK has had no shortage of good polls. But a new one suggests Nigel Farage's party has a chance not only of winning the next election, but of claiming a decent Commons majority, too. In February, Reform topped a Sky News/YouGov poll for the first time, with Nigel Farage's party edging in front on 25%, Labour pushed into second on 24%, with the Tories on 21%. But a fresh one from Ipsos puts Reform on 34%, nine points ahead of Labour on 25%, with the Conservatives a distant third on 15%. While the other parties are flatlining, Reform appears to be pushing boundaries. Were these figures to be replicated across the country at a general election, with every constituency behaving the same way, then Reform could win as many as 340 seats, giving it a majority of 30, Sky News analysis suggests. Labour could be reduced to 176 seats, down 236 on last year's election, while the Tories would hit a record low of 12 seats. But polling should always be taken with a pinch of salt and with the firm acknowledgement that there is not an election coming any time soon. Conservative backbenchers might also tell you publicly that opinion polls are notoriously difficult to translate into seat numbers because voting percentages in individual constituencies can vary hugely from the overall average. But the truth is that the symbolism of Reform UK topping another poll is likely to be noticed by MPs from all parties, especially backbench Conservatives who have actively been hoping their leader, Kemi Badenoch, can help them climb the polls and bring the party back into public favour. Politics is a brutal game and when it comes to toppling underwhelming party leaders, the Tories are more ruthless than most. One wonders how many of these polls Mrs Badenoch's party will allow her to endure. Read more: This poll is also a warning to Labour. As the party approaches a year since its major victory, it will not have much to celebrate if these numbers are anything to go by. According to this survey, only 19% are satisfied with the job Sir Keir Starmer is doing as prime minister, with 73% dissatisfied. And the figure of 25% of voters intending to vote Labour is a level not seen since October 2019. While abstract to much of the public, polling can often shape not only the chatter inside Westminster but how and when plots by MPs begin. For Reform UK, this is a much-needed morale boost after a surprise resignation by their former Chairman Zia Yusuf, and then an almost immediate U-turn back into the party. And Kemi Badenoch - who said during her leadership campaign that the Conservatives needed to go back to first principles and that this would take time - will be wondering, seven-and-a-half months after winning the leadership, how much time she really has left.
