It might be worth also checking out if permission is actually possible to get for Hensbarrow Downs G/DC-008 and finding out if the whole area will become access land in the future as well as checking to see if the current access land goes into the activation zone Gerald. It will be interesting to hear the results on this.
Jimmy M0HGY
I would never trust a consumer GPS to give an absolute value. However I would be happy to use one to give a relative height, especially if it is one with a barometric altimeter. If you can reach the true summit, using a GPS to âsurveyâ down from there seems entirely reasonable. Or perhaps up from a nearby spot height, but normally the summit is the only reference point readily available over a short time scale.
I donât know the situation on this particular hill. In practice I suggest that there are probably quite a few English summits that are technically on private land which is not in an access area, but where the landowner makes no attempt to enforce the boundary and may even encourage informal public access. Sometimes itâs hard to know the legal situation - even if the summit is reached by a public footpath that does not necessarily mean that the adjacent land may be used without permission. Notwithstanding the letter of the rules, we only make a fuss in cases where it is known that the landowner cares enough to enforce restrictions.
Martyn
Thanks Gerald what is desperately needed here is a little local knowledge! On the OS map the boundary of the access land follows a line of Boundary Stones which are long gone in this area judging by the Google Earth images. Is there now a physical barrier at the edge of the access land where it crosses the old tip? If it has been fenced off it would be a good indication that the land owner wanted to keep people âorf his laandâ⌠there may even be some signage that will give a useful lead.
Look forward to hearing your findings 
73 de Paul G4MD
The OA land has been defined for more than 10 years - I have an OS extract with a file date of 2006. From the various aerial views it would appear that landscape works have been carried out on OA land at some stage as well as on the private side of the boundary since 2006. While it would be nice to find a row of boundary posts, somehow I doubt I will. I am also not expecting to find a fence either or signs, though a physical fence line would make my visit easier. My suspicion is that the summit remains open and may quietly become OA land at some point in the future.
BTW, the landowners are a large corporation. I am unlikely to be shown the barrel of a 12 bore, but might find an 18 stone engineer clad in a hi-viz gear and hard hat taking an interest in what I am up to. Perhaps I should wear my own!
;-)[quote=âM1MAJ, post:42, topic:14595â]
Notwithstanding the letter of the rules, we only make a fuss in cases where it is known that the landowner cares enough to enforce restrictions.
[/quote]
My only concern over this one would be that they are still carrying out work in the vicinity of the summit, or indeed are likely to return to undertake more work. If the work has definitely been completed, as the RHB visit might suggest, then I doubt any fuss would be made. The landowners have an interest in maintaining good relations with the public.
Gerald G4OIG
This thread is maturing into a never-ending stream of comedy gold.
It is strange what amuses some people.
.[quote=âM1MAJ, post:42, topic:14595â]
Notwithstanding the letter of the rules, we only make a fuss in cases where it is known that the landowner cares enough to enforce restrictions.
[/quote]
Well put Martyn - think weâre making a mountain out of waste heap with this oneâŚ
My approach to access is simple. If it looks like open moorland/hill then I access it (unless there are specific signs prohibiting pedestrian access or well established access issues that have been widely published).
If it is fenced off (rural farmland etc.) but without any pedestrian access prohibition signs, then I try to find someone to ask locally; farmer; âsomeone on the gateâ; etc. I NEVER start writing to head office.
If I canât find anyone and there are no obvious health an safety issues (itâs marked as a shooting range/minefield) and I can access without damaging boundary fences or walls then I wander up âbold as brassâ. If someone was to ask me to leave, I would leave, explaining that I tried to find someone to ask and say sorry. Simple.
Iâm safe in the knowledge that Iâve made practical efforts not to upset anyone. Thatâs good enough for me.
Itâs stood me in good stead for 40 years in the UK. Of course attitudes in other countries vary, I wouldnât do this on a Ranch in North Dakota (apologies if I am maligning the good landowners of North Dakota).
Itâs simple really - use your common sense.
Here are some Google Street Viewâs showing the gates to the new Hensbarrow Downs G/DC-008, one of these has warning signs on which I cannot even see even when zooming in so could be saying that access is prohibited or could say enter at your own risk the 2nd link to the gate on the other side of the new summit has similar signs on and with this one you can clear see the words âno entry to unauthorised personsâ
The private land could be fenced off to the access land on the hill, but it may not be, but the gates to the private land clearly have warning signs and no entry signs on them, so if there is no fence on the the hill making the access/private land border, I think you should still not cross this point due to the signs on the actual gates.
Also in terms of permission, I think you would be better of getting it the head office rather than ask locally only due to the fact it may hard to find someone in the area to actually ask permission locally.
Jimmy M0HGY
Isnât that the access to the china clay pit itself, and the treatment plant, rather than the Downs? If so then its not surprising that access is limited!
Hi Brian,
These tracks are the access for the Gunheath China Clay works which covers the Downs itself.
The main China Clay plant is the opposite the road to the to the Downs on the west side of the Downs.
Jimmy M0HGY
What date are these?
73,
Rod
Hi Rod,
First one of October 2010 and 2nd one is July 2016.
Jimmy M0HGY
Sorry Jimmy but I think you are going about this the wrong way.
If individuals assess the situation on the ground they can make their own judgement. Once a jobsworth at head-office says ânoâ we are permanently stuck with another Upper Park situation.
73,
Rod
âIf you donât ask, then they canât say noâ. That seems to be what youâre saying Rod, and I have heard that attitude from prominent groups of walkers and hillbaggers in the past.
That is NOT what it says in the SOTA General Rules though, which suggest that the G Association Manager is going about this the RIGHT way.
I rather expected that reply
Ah, so youâve read the General Rules yourself then? 
All will hopefully become clear within a week or so when I get up to see the situation on the ground. I am hopeful that it wonât be as tight as the assessment by Mark VOF suggests. In the meantime, argue among yourselves as to whether it is the rig, the antenna or the operator that has to be in the AZ⌠just in case it is âthe size of an activators footâ.
So we donât use "Would have asked permission but saw no-one around to ask⌠" rule anymore.
There are no grounds for argument! Read the rules!
3.7.1.4 âThe Operating Position must be within the Activation Zone. The operating position must lie within a closed contour line at the permitted maximum Vertical Distance below the summitâŚThe Operating Position is taken to be the position of the operator.â
Must have caught you in an off moment Brian. Thanks for setting out what I know already, having been in SOTA for 11 years⌠you know I have a big spoon and love stirring it.