Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

Barcombe Mills fence latest

1
 
On 9 Jul 2010 at 4:31pm jonnyboy wrote:
There is now a single fence running from the gate at the little bridge to the gate by the reservoir. The other fence (making the corridor has been removed as a gesture of good will). I feel very sorry for the two builders there getting constant abuse from the public. I had a word with one woman who was telling them they should be ashamed of themselves despoiling the area. The builders, to their credit, remained polite. I asked her if she owned an area of land like this that was been camped on etc what would she do? She replied " put up a gate and keep everyone out!!!
1
 
On 9 Jul 2010 at 5:37pm Deelite wrote:
There is some hope then.
2
 
On 9 Jul 2010 at 8:00pm Extra wrote:
According to the Sussex Express today it is the field that is the causing the majority of the problem. So, why not fence off the field and leave the riverbank? I just wonder if this clever guy is sabre rattling, it certainly has focused a lot of attention.
2
1
On 9 Jul 2010 at 8:18pm Janet Street Preacher wrote:
'this clever guy' !!! ???
It certainly has foucused a lot of attention and the vast majority is negative towards the landowner and his way over the top methods
1
 
On 9 Jul 2010 at 8:45pm wrote:
The public footpath does not follow the river bank. Three cheers for Rosalyn St Pierre and the easy tiger.
4
3
On 10 Jul 2010 at 6:41pm Nigel wrote:
I think the point here is that the land owner must have bought the land with the knowledge that for over 110 years (that I know of) people have had access to the river bank for swimming and picnics etc. This is not about camping or land misuse but the fact that the public have has continuous access to the riverbank over the last 110 years. Fencing this off could be seen as restricting public access, and I for think a public right of access to one of the most wonderful resources in the local area. The previous land owners to my knowledge have not restricted access.
We are all aware that this is privately owned and it has been for as long as I can remember.
I still do not know the reason the landowner has for the actions that he has taken, maybe he could enlighten us?
3
6
On 10 Jul 2010 at 8:52pm Charlie O wrote:
I know the land owner very well and he is a great mate some people are being really unfair I may be only 10 years of age but some of you are very immature, He has a young family and all he wants to do is spend time in his garden with them. Why should he put up with this, he has tried everything to sort this out for everyone's benefit but the council and police will not help. This was his only option and was not taken lightly, you would all do the same if you experienced what he has had to put up with.
4
1
On 11 Jul 2010 at 7:35am jonnyboy wrote:
Plenty of people swimming and picnicking yesterday. They just squeezed round the end of the fence by the bridge.
2
 
On 11 Jul 2010 at 8:21am Janet Street Preacher wrote:
Did he put up any signs to stop people camping or abusing the land in any other way Charlie O? I didn't see any
 
1
On 11 Jul 2010 at 9:20am Dave wrote:
you truly are a confident and literate 10 year old charlie, a credit to our uk education system
10
 
On 11 Jul 2010 at 11:19am MC wrote:
Maybe public use of the river at Barcombe Mills would become less popular if a sign such as this were erected:

---------------------------------------------------------
BATHE IN THE SUSSEX OUSE AT YOUR OWN RISK

There are 38 Sewage treatment works draining into the Sussex Ouse. In Summer 60% of the total river water flowing at Barcombe Mills can be sewage effluent containing a toxic mix of harmful bacteria and viruses. Herds of cattle also defecate into the river and its tributaries. 10% of cattle faeces contains e.coli 051, which can cause extreme sickness and even death. It is also possible to contract Weil's disease through contact with the river water.
Children are especially susceptible to harm.

THINK BEFORE YOU SWIM
--------------------------------------------------------

I'm pretty sure t's accurate and that the information can be verified.
 
 
On 11 Jul 2010 at 11:43am jrsussex wrote:
MC - I imagine such a notice would, on the face of it, possibly work but given that generations of prople have swum there without the dire consequences implied it may not.
Charlie O - For a 10 year old a you have displayed a great perception of the root of the problem and certainly the first defensible argument as to why the landowner has chosen to adopt the unpopular method he has. He certainly has the right, as do we all, to enjoy that which is ours without having that right spoiled by thoughtless people. There's the rub, what percentage of people do abuse the freedom previously enjoyed by so many? A small minority I imagine which is why the landowners solution is seen by many to be too severe. Is it possible for the regular users of Barcombe Mills to approach the landlowner with a view to concilitary discussion? No good approaching him in an aggressive manner, that will not work.
2
 
On 11 Jul 2010 at 12:01pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I think a fence preventing access to to most of the field while permitting river bank access would be a suitable compromise.
1
1
On 11 Jul 2010 at 1:18pm MC wrote:
jrs. In recent years there have been a number of reports of people having stomach problems and sickness after swimming in the Sussex Ouse. This might be because of increasing concentrations of bacteria and viruses in the river, perhaps down to:
1. Decreased flow of clean water due to increased abstraction. An example: the Brighton aquifier feeds a major Sussex Ouse tributary, the Bevern Stream. Anyone who has direct knowledge of this stream over the last three or four decades will attest to its reduced flow and water levels.
2. Increased eflluence output. As population increases so does effluence. An example: The rapid expansion of Uckfield ensured that the Uckfield Sewage Treatment Works were over-capacitised almost before construction was completed. The Uck drains into the Ouse.
Alternatively it could have been dow to cow poo (I do know that one suspected case probably was down to poorly barbequed chicken!).
Barcombe Parish Council are approaching the landowner to see what can be done. Rosalyn St Pierre (Liberal Democrat County Councillor for Ringmer & Lewes Bridge) is also on the case (see Sussex Express). A posse of land users is probably not required at this point.
 
 
On 11 Jul 2010 at 5:27pm jrsussex wrote:
MC - Take your point, however if there has been a number substantiated reports of swimmers becoming sick/ill why hasn't Environmental Health become involved? Sounds like the sort of matters, once made aware, which they would usually become involved in very quickly.
2
 
On 11 Jul 2010 at 8:01pm MC wrote:
I'd think twice about swimming in many UK rivers. Although the effluent is well treated before it is discharged it still contains harmful bacteria, a cocktail of hormones and other nasty stuff. There is a high concentration of SWTs on the Sussex Ouse. I've heard it referred to as "a forgotten river".
1
1
On 15 Jul 2010 at 5:43pm MICK CASEY wrote:
i have walked this river were the fence is now for over 30 years, it was my favorite place on earth, this fence was a great shock to me. it has absolutley spoilt a ideal part of the country, can someone organsise a pertition against it. ?
1
 
On 15 Jul 2010 at 11:09pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
It's a shame that the landowner has felt the need to take this step. But it's also a real shame that people are abusing the site by leaving litter etc. I'm all for keeping land open access, but people who want to enjoy the countryside must respect it and take their detritus with them and behave in such a way that does not destroy the peace and quiet of nature,or the flora and fauna. Sounds like it's just become too popular and is disturbing the landowner. Some careful negotiation is needed to regain the public access.

Mick - why don't you organise a petition ?
Webbo - can there be some sort of petition set up on the forum ?
 
1
On 16 Jul 2010 at 9:52am Farmer Palmer wrote:
Can't see that a petition will be anything but a waste of time. If I had fenced off a bit of my private property because I was fed up with people regularly trashing it, and was then handed a petition to take the fence down again, I think I would probably tell them to shove their peitition up the appropriate orifice. The land has up to now been made accessible to the public, but the public has demonstrated that they are not able to behave in a civilised or respectful manner - it's the same on the river bank by Tescos. It's a shame, but it's a reflection on the way people are these days.
 
 
On 16 Jul 2010 at 10:09am Land Owner wrote:
BB, why don't you open up your garden to the public, then you can watch the great unwashed destroy it.
 
 
On 16 Jul 2010 at 8:27pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
I completely understand why the landowner has taken the step and am in no way defending those who abuse the land. I don't think you read my post properly LO. I agree I wouldn't like it happening in my own back garden - but then my own back garden is a postage stamp size !
But as it seems people have had rights of access for decades, I would have thought the obvious thing would be to come to some sort of compromise solution.
1
3
On 19 Jul 2010 at 9:58am Farmer Palmer wrote:
Just because people used the land doesn't mean that they had any rights of access. If people were trespassing, then the land owner has every right to try and prevent them doing so - especially if they leave the place looking like a tip and an open sewer.
2
 
On 2 Aug 2010 at 1:06pm Harold E wrote:
@ Farmer Palmer - yes, i agree that leaving rubbish in beautiful land is disgraceful but that's only a very small majority and it was most certainly not left looking like a tip, there was one remains of a fire place which was in the corner of the field anyway and i didn't notice any rubbish at all.
3
 
On 2 Aug 2010 at 1:22pm - wrote:
to charlie o- if all the land owner wants is to "spend time in his garden" then why does he care if people take a swim in the river? there were no signs saying no camping befor, and although it is iligal there was no harm done.
thousands of people have enjoyed swimming in the river for decades and now all of this has been taken away for just one persons selfish needs. He doesen't even gain any thing out of putting up the fence, all it means is that the fun and enjoyment of others has been taken away, well done him!
im only 15, but i have found it very enjoyable swimming in the river, me and my freinds have gone there and had a really nice time, with out "abusing" the land. i hope the i hope the land owner reconsiders his selfish decision.
3
 
On 2 Aug 2010 at 1:29pm JJ F wrote:
to charlie o- if all the land owner wants is to "spend time in his garden" then why does he care if people take a swim in the river? there were no signs saying no camping befor, and although it is iligal there was no harm done.
thousands of people have enjoyed swimming in the river for decades and now all of this has been taken away for just one persons selfish needs. He doesen't even gain any thing out of putting up the fence, all it means is that the fun and enjoyment of others has been taken away, well done him!
im only 15, but i have found it very enjoyable swimming in the river, me and my freinds have gone there and had a really nice time, with out "abusing" the land. i hope the i hope the land owner reconsiders his selfish decision.
i forgot to sign last time, sorry
3
 
On 4 Aug 2010 at 6:38pm JJ f wrote:
the fence it down! totally gone. does anyone know why?


11 posts left

Your response


You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool

terms


 

Lewes Ice Cream 68:132
Lewes Ice Cream

Hi, I would like to add an event but the system won't let me. Please help! Maia Eden more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.
Thomas Paine