On Monday 15 April, Cirencester Park, previously constituting one third of the land in the Cotswolds that the public can freely access (already a meagre 1%), was commodified and shut behind a ticket booth. This was the doing of the wealthy Bathurst Estate in conjunction with their recent efforts to accelerate the monetisation of the estate, from the construction of hospitality venues in the park to the controversial land sale and development of a large housing estate on the edge of Cirencester.
Tickets are £4 for an adult, £2 for a child, and whilst locals supposedly have free access, this requires a £10 deposit for an annual pass.
There is controversy about the proposal’s environmental credentials, Although the estate says that profits will be used for conservation work or rewilding, this claim has been strongly challenged by local people,
These actions can be understood as characteristic of class in England and its historical development; from the role of colonialism in the initial purchase of the estate by Benjamin Bathurst in 1695, in large part with profits from the transatlantic slave trade, to the ongoing ability of one family to restrict public access to nature and land in such a direct and visible way.
In other words, locals are not simply resisting a £10 deposit or £4 charge for access, but rather the idea that centuries-old land allocation, linked to historical participants in and beneficiaries of the slave trade, can dictate and restrict current public access to land.
Cirencester Park: a history
As defenders of the Bathurst Estate correctly point out, Cirencester Park is their private land and thus they are well within their legal rights to impose access charges. In addition, the Estate regularly points to the precedent set by various other stately homes and privately owned properties who similarly levy an admission charge. To oppose these charges, and restrictions to land access across the country, it is therefore necessary to ask some critical historical questions over why the laws and practices of the 1600’s should govern land allocation in the 21st century. When and why did this land stop being ‘commons’ shared by all? Furthermore, how did 15,000 acres of land become the dominion of one bloodline with carte blanche to do with it as they please centuries later?
Whilst the seizure of common land from the public, and into the estates of the aristocracy, was legislated for in 1604 in the Enclosure Acts, another question specific to the Bathursts is how they financed the park’s purchase in 1695. A dark part of the history of the Bathursts’ claim to the land lies, somewhat unsurprisingly, in the transatlantic slave trade. This was largely through Benjamin Bathurst’s investments and role as deputy governor in the Royal Africa Company (a position later held by Edward Colston whose statue was famously toppled in 2020). The proceeds, steeped in the blood of enslaved African people, enabled him to purchase the park. This part is conveniently left off the ‘history’ section on the estate’s website.
Is it the current earl’s fault that his great-(however many ‘greats’) grandfather was a slave trader? No. However, he is a recipient of great wealth (and the park itself) resulting from his predecessor’s activities in the slave trade. The failure to address these origins calls into question whether people can really relinquish the responsibility of their family history unless they are prepared to relinquish the great privilege and wealth it has bestowed upon them.
Contemporary class dynamics
The controversy over Cirencester Park is ultimately an example of how the historical development of class and land ownership in the UK, alongside the legacy of colonialism, reproduces unequal outcomes today.
This seems a relatively trivial example when one considers the daily struggles of millions of impoverished households on account of class exploitation. However the ability of one family to restrict thousands from free access to so much land has a visceral impact that illustrates how class dynamics operate. In other words, it is the same principle of private ownership above all that allows corporation owners to profit to the tune of billions from a cost-of-living crisis whilst paying their workers minimum wage, or allows landlords to exploit a housing crisis to increase rents with little scrutiny. This too is what ultimately allows the Bathurst estate to put 15,000 acres of land behind a ‘paywall’ overnight.
Furthermore, the class divide of rural land ownership is highlighted further as a national issue when one considers the that the public in England have a right to access only 8% of the country’s land. These are not natural barriers preventing us from accessing our own countryside, but rather the efforts of a landowning class to exclude the wider population from land they consider to be theirs.
The usual arguments rolled out against public access generally revolve around responsible stewardship of the land, that the public can’t be trusted not to further damage and litter the countryside, whilst private owners act as guardians.
One fatal flaw in this line of reasoning is that under the status quo of mass-privatised land and limited public access, the ecology of the British countryside has been decimated. In large part, as the top segment of wealthy landowners have behaved selfishly and destructively towards nature for agricultural, commercial, or leisure pursuits, leaving the UK as one of the most ecologically depleted countries in the world. For example, this includes grouse moors covering 8% of England and Scotland in which there are uncontrolled burns and the large-scale killing of potential predators including birds of prey, stoats, weasels, foxes, hedgehogs or badgers or any animal that may wander into indiscriminately set traps. It also includes unsustainable farming practices in the interest of profit with little democratic oversight.
Local resistance and right to roam
It is moments of sudden change, for example, the case of Cirencester Park, that provide us with the opportunity to look beyond the status quo towards alternative models of access and ownership of the natural world. This is reflected in the public dissent from Cirencester locals towards the Bathurst Estate following the implementation of these access charges. Locals who had perhaps once been appeased by the ability to walk through this seemingly protected landscape, have now been reminded that this was merely a ‘privilege’ extended to them out of so-called philanthropy rather than a genuine right to walk amongst the countryside. As two local park goers, who had just been made aware of the new charges, explained to the BBC: “It’s a glorious park and was part of Cirencester’s heritage and it’s been taken away from us”, and that instead “the park should be for everybody”…”everybody should have access to open spaces and greenery”
This has led to the formation of a local branch of ‘Right to Roam’, a national campaign group fighting for equal access to our countryside. This was kicked off on 17 March as hundreds of campaigners marched into the park to protest the charges, and since then Cirencester Right to Roam continues to organise regular, smaller-scale, trespasses, aiming to highlight the arbitrary nature of the charging scheme and build further opposition among the parks users.
Cirencester Park ‘paywall’ – emblematic?
Ultimately, the Cirencester Park controversy is emblematic of a number of historical and contemporary injustices, from the horrors of slavery upon which the park was purchased, to the inequality of land access. As such, the widely unpopular move has inadvertently triggered a swell of public opposition and has led, for some, to a deeper questioning of class and land ownership dynamics in the UK. It is understandable that the campaign goes on and protests continue from Cirencester locals and from Right to Roam.
We want to hear your views. Please send any comments to editor@westenglandbylines.co.uk
CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO OUR CROWDFUNDER
HELP US BECOME STRONGER SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO DELIVER POWERFUL CITIZEN JOURNALISM!
