[diggers350] disenclosure

[Adrian Peter Toole]

I'm not sure I understand what you're after. the flight of the rural
poor from their way of life was a result of enclosures.

The process of enclosure meant to abolish common rights and open field
agriculture, granting exclusive occupancy to one person by act of
Parliament. A condition of the award was that the new owner "enclosed"
his land. This meant in practice temporary fencing and a Quickthorn
hedge.

In general, people didn't live out in the fields but in villages, for
the benefits of living amongst others.

I fail to see how advocating modern enclosures can make farming viable
for the poor.  The protection and re-establishment of common rights over
the millions of mono-culture acres that surround us would however open
up real opportunities.

For a real understanding of the historical context, join the Open Spaces
Society who fight these battles every day:

OSS, 25A Bell Street, Henley-on-Thames, Oxen RG9 2BA
OSSHQ at aol.com
www.oss.org.uk
(01491) 573535

Adrian Toole




In message <20000518142427.64842.qmail at hotmail.com>, david quaver
<aslightas at hotmail.com> writes
>Disenclosure
>   Following up from the aftereffects of the enclosure act bought in a while 
>back(centuries at least). Still today, the right to enclose land is 
>permitted without planning permission. Sure there are restrictions in 
>height, especially next to a road(one metre high), else where you can get 
>away with two metres. For an accurate description of the law see under 
>'minor operations' in 'town and country planning(general permitted 
>development order 1995), available through hmso for a cost(i'll be writing 
>it up to web shortly)
>  To Enclose land!!!!...outrageous!!!, the symbology of it all would no 
>doubt make many quake. I'm sure a fruiting hedge or even a long mound of 
>rich compost, if it just happened to be an enclosure or part of an enclosure 
>would be a bit more friendly, and the place could be riddled with dedicated 
>footpaths.
>But why bother if you can't live on the land and enjoy the fruits of work. 
>The same section of planning law mentions 'temporarary buildings'. For work 
>that has been allowed by our friends the planners, temporary buildings are 
>are allowed by law if they are dismantled upon completion of the job in 
>hand. If that job is making compost for an earth mound enclosure(following 
>any contour lines to the degree that allows slow drainage), or carrying on 
>with hedge planting, dry stone walling, etc.; then I see no reason, legally 
>or ecologically, why temporary accomodation should not be allowed for all 
>workers involved in such work for at least sixteen hours per week. A workers 
>co-op
>would help justify income aid for the low waged.
>     Ther are some quetions. How long does, say an acre of land take to 
>enclose, or how long can can a composter reasonably expect to justify 
>accomodation. If land is bought as a square and not Trusted the boundry will 
>remain the same, enclosure will be bought about relatively quickly compared 
>to land which has a boundry resembling the whirls and eddys in a river. 
>Yeah, but who sells land with weird boundries? Who needs to? All land 
>holders have the right to sell on any part of their land to a trust. Anyone 
>has the right to create a Trust. All who wish to sell land(give,lease), may 
>retain certain rights(fruit picking, wooding, covenants protecting trees 
>etc. etc) upon the transfer of land.
>  If any one knows of any precedents that would interfere with this method 
>of ruralisation, please reply when convenient.
>________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Long Distance Relationship? Join beMANY! And pay less each month 
>for Long Distance.
>http://click.egroups.com/1/4165/2/_/13983/_/958659869/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

-- 
Adrian Peter Toole