The challenges ahead . . . .

“It’s like moving house without having seen the new house. We have made an agreement to exchange, but we don’t yet know the terms of Brexit, we don’t know the costs and the consequences.”

Tony Blair

Half British


The vote to leave the EU has been made; fostering a political climate laced with hesitancy, oscillation and absent chairs. The population, albeit only 37%, voted for something where the implications are not widely understood, although some evidence was available for the diligent.

Many incongruous positions demand satisfaction, often unrealistic given our nations ‘temporary post brexit’ decline in wealth. Some patently ridiculous ideas and others outright sinister have emerged, attempting to assume a new found plausibility.

Land Skipping

Our Land and Environmental management is under pinned with thirty years of legislation agreed by the UK government but often originating in the EU. This will present some challenges, threats and opportunities if it is to be replaced. The current developing approaches to a more sympathetic, plural land management could be threatened, where well financed self interest could dominate.

The issue of flood management being a prime example. Land owners and farmers loudly and aggressively strove to dominate the debate demanding the dredging of rivers, which inevitably increased the flow and damage further down stream. Their campaign managed to remove or silence many capable people who saw both sides of a contentious debate.

Within this journal entry I am collating the thought of others, a good way to collate thoughtful comments, but also as a reference point – a launching pad – for future photographic work and projects

The Agricultural Issues

Ian Hodge – Professor of Rural Economy at the University of Cambridge:

“it does seem quite likely that at least some of those environmental gains could be lost as a consequence of Brexit”

The Daily Telegraph:

In total, “55 per cent of UK total income from farming comes from CAP support”.

Land Workers Alliance:

“What is more clear is that the world of the 1950s and 60s has gone and it is not coming back.”

Campaign to Protect Rural England:

recommendations to increase the diversity, sustainability and resilience of the farming sector

The Scotsman

“Farmers need to make the case for keeping subsidies”

The Independent

“many farmers had voted “without understanding the consequences” and were now in dismay over news they may not receive the same level of payouts made under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy”

Roots in the Rubble – a cautious opportunity

“So yes, despair and rage and curse: there are reasons enough to do so. But then raise your eyes to where hope lies.”

So Much For Sovereignty

“What does it mean to love your country? What does it mean to defend its sovereignty? For some of the leaders of the Brexit campaign, it means reducing the United Kingdom to a franchise of corporate capital, governed from head offices overseas. They will take us out of Europe to deliver us into the arms of other powers.”

Environmental law implications

Brexit will have a far-reaching and complex effect on our environmental legislation, and that long-term uncertainty does not encourage green investment.


The Definitive Map 2026; a questionable law?

The Definitive Map 2026; a questionable law?

For people with an interest in walking, or more specifically our right to be able to walk where we have in the past, January 2026 is an important date. To someone like myself, an ambling ‘hedge poker’ along arcane byways, tracks and green lanes, the Definitive Map legislation could stop some of this activity.

The Definitive map is being created by all local authorities as a legal record of all public rights of way in their specified area. The collation and recording of these routes are the responsibility of the local authority, but it relies on the public to inform them of their existence if originally missed off. Full details can be found here.

So when 2026 rolls along, if a route you have used all your life is not registered on the Definitive Map it will be lost; maybe it’s that ginnel or snicket you cut through to the shop or pub, or the shortcut to the football pitch that your father showed you, or the 3000-year-old lane, in legal terms still a highway, slowly disappearing under the plough. Your right to use them will be lost, and you could face a civil prosecution if you carry on traversing them, although in all likelihood at some point after 2026 the landowner will block them.

A complete mess but…

It is not the intention of this article to discuss the actions to be taken – see the links further down this article if interested – although taking photographs of paths and byways might one day help,. I want to question the principle of going through with this legislation in the first place.

I suspect this legislation was greeted with enthusiasm in some quarters – and not just the landowners – as some people thought that finally we would get it clear where we could walk and no one would stop us.

‘muddied’ thinking

The imposed artificial cutoff date, 2026, (it was 2016), is drawing closer with little resources available to it, or the general public having been alerted to it. It might seem a long way away, but it can take many years to complete the legal procedures to get a route finally accepted by all parties. (Nothing like having a good idea (?) and setting a date for its completion without thinking through the scale of the operation). Local authorities had to allocate scarce resources – in a time of reducing budgets – to work on the project, which they did. We now find that the latest round of staff cuts have reduced those limited resources available for an ever increasing backlog of cases.

‘once a highway always a highway’

Enshrined in planning law, case law and many other statutes, ‘once a highway’ sets out our rights, something we have that cannot be taken away without an agreement. Can this fundamental principle be eradicated by statute? and if it is, should we not have a full and supported discussion, like for example, the current leave or remain EU debate. Remember it is for the public to find these routes and register them, but if the public is not aware of the legislation, how can they possibly be expected to do it.

Does the law support the ‘once a highway’ principle? Or has something else eroded it which is far more important, the right to quiet enjoyment of your private property? A quick walk around an area with a map and history book will reveal how many highways no longer exist, having disappeared under ancient or dubious circumstances. In truth, this principle was probably lost many years ago, ignored by the powerful and oblivious to the many. It seems likely that the Definitive Map will travel the same route, it will reduce rights and not add to them.

Land Rights

The history of the countryside has a storyline of continually restricting access, be it the Enclosure Acts over many centuries, the 1836 and 1936 Tithe Act, or the Public Rights of Way Act 1932 to name but a few. The legislation was about establishing boundaries, creating taxation values and establishing private ownership, the by-product was where we could walk, and by implication, it identified where we could not walk.

The Definitive Map is at the very least taking away some hope that one day we will be able to access the countryside as in the past, beyond the narrowly confined strips on the edges. European countries have a different perspective on land access;


Why do we want to list all the public rights of way or more likely remove ones that are unclear, when the net ‘benefit’ is to simply enhance land prices. If a piece of land has a public footpath on it, or potentially a right of way, it is worth less. Land has become an asset; the field is no longer judged by what income can be generated from farming, but by its long term asset value and the gain attached to it. The removal of future claims for public rights of way across the land will improve the balance sheet.

Therefore what benefit do the public get from assisting in the escalation of land prices? None. Surely far better to direct energies towards getting landowners to accept the values of a modern plural society, rather than allowing them to continually attempt to exert their manorial rights. Land ownership in this country is highly subsidised by the taxpayer, yet we get little in return.

Future generations

As an inhabited country, we have roamed this land for at least 10000 years. The current epoch that has severely restricted our access to the countryside is only 400 hundred years old . The Definitive Map legislation states that there is no going back – therefore we are creating something that will impact on all subsequent generations. Will we be held responsible for not protecting their rights and heritage through either this complacency or greed?

Interestingly no group is yet demanding the obvious; stop the Definitive Map coming into existence. All ‘conservation’, and countryside ‘access’ groups are trying to get the public’s attention to help get the definitive map completed. This has ability to turn into a shambles – something that might have had a noble sentiment originally will probably do the opposite. When the first group declares its total opposition will be a day to celebrate; if only for the fact that we will have a genuine debate, and the powers that be will be forced to dedicate more resources, and a clearer head, to the problem.

For further information visit the following;

A few photographs of routes I use; not on the Definitive Map, or subject to a current lengthy process to get them on.





Accepting Responsibility

For a while I have been deliberating on why landscape photography concentrates on the comfortable, rarely deviating from the grand and dramatic. We have a long history of photographing the majestic places people no longer live, or not anymore. Jesse Alexander covers aspects of this, and offers alternative views in his book Perspectives on Place, which I recommend.

However in considering these questions I am still restless over something that rarely gets touched upon, the contention of land ownership itself – and should the photographer accept some responsibility for the content and approach they take in documenting this muted quagmire.

Photographing Albion

To the diligent observer, (which every photographer should be), everything we see is a product of our human activity. It is misguided to believe that anywhere exists that has not been impacted by our presence. The arcadian idyll is a popular myth or a political deception, depending on your viewpoint; but it is within this environment that landscape photography has to operate. It is understanding our output that photographers need to deliberate on, not only why we recorded a particular situation, but also, what are we capturing, and importantly who or what does it represent.

Crisis or continuum?

We capture what we are

Simon Schama in Landscape & Memory (p9) stated: “Even the landscapes we suppose to be most free of our culture may turn out on closer inspection, to be its product.” Developing this statement for the photographer – even the landscapes we choose to capture are the product of our culture, not just the view but how we present it.

For example ‘natural’ moorland and abandoned farmsteads, forever associated with nostalgia – where a past freedom to roam is formed in our memory, but only recently granted – has become an attractive tax investment and ecological disaster combined. This land is depleted of diverse wildlife, increasingly covered by invasive species – where ‘grouse beating’ has become the only employment. The land has been exploited, (and managed to the point of low fertility), but it still has the ability to recover. Are we as photographers capturing its potential or its continuing demise, as metamorphosis creates a desert.

Tax investment and ecological disaster?

Power and Politics

The landscape is a longstanding political terrain, where owners compete with the dispossessed to control its benefit. The writings of George Monbiot cover many aspects of the power and politics behind land management, and I recommend bookmarking his site. He easily exposes the contradiction and corruption emanating from the ‘guardians of our environment’. Where scientific and environmental knowledge is blindly discarded for ‘homespun’ remedies and manorial rights. He recognises the ‘custodians’ whose purpose is to ensure the status quo in land ownership; alongside developing schemes to further increase grants and incentives – to the largest subsided industry we possess, Agriculture. Many recognise the problems agriculture face, but few are prepared to challenge its current stewardship, a notable exception being the current Scottish government.


A Personal Perspective

The politics beyond the frame will always dominate, but their influence within the frame is enormous. When photographers capture, then enhance areas of outstanding natural beauty, do we become responsible for validating that our land is in good hands. The continual provision of reassuring images surely sustain a belief that a ‘natural beauty’ can be accessed somehow, somewhere, but maybe not around here. What suppresses our innate curiosity to seek out an understanding of what we see? Thereby, can we conclude that the ‘traditional’ landscape photographer is guilty of aiding and abetting forces that primarily seek landscape exploitation over increasing calls for environmental harmony?

As Professor Paul Hill stated, “In my opinion, the majority of Landscape Photographs I see rarely challenge or surprise. They are predictable and formulaic and pose few philosophical or visual questions. They often appear to be conservative artefacts celebrating the status quo.”

Environmental harmony?

Therefore do practitioners of Landscape Photography needs to take responsibility for the images it creates; while seeking the enhanced picturesque might provide some limited income, in doing so, do we become complicit agents in widespread land abuse and destruction.