Typification

• Type of institution for collective action: Manor court
• Name/description institution: Brancaster Manor Court
• Country: England
• Region: Norfolk
• Name of city or specified area: Brancaster Civil Parish
• Further specification location: Brancaster commons (CL 65, CL 124, CL 161, CL 159).
• Amount of area and boundaries: Today. the major registered common land units in Brancaster consist of:
  • CL 65: 1,334.35 ha, Brancaster & Burnham harbour marshlands, including Scolt Head Island.
  • CL 124: 360.16 ha, Brancaster marshes north of Brancaster and Brancaster Staithe.
  • CL161: 51.96 ha, Intertidal area north of Brancaster.
  • CL 159: 35.60 ha, Barrow Common – an inland common near Brancaster Staithe.
• Defining the area of common lands in Brancaster at any given time is complicated by an unstable coastline – which has both deposited and eroded areas – and by changes in land use and ownership.  Certain areas of foreshore originally deemed to be the lord’s freehold had evolved into common land by the late twentieth century, and a process of enclosure in the late eighteenth century redistributed common land and rights.
• Recognized by local government: Yes.  The role of the manor court was recognised in wider legal and governmental structures; but its significance as an institution was fading by the nineteenth century.

Foundation – termination

• Foundation/start of institution, date or year: Medieval period; no specific date.
• Year of termination of institution: Late eighteenth – early nineteenth century.  This period saw a gradual process of withdrawal from common land management, although the court itself continued to operate in a reduced form into the early twentieth century.
• Reason for termination: Historic trend towards the collapse of manor courts in the modern period in England and Wales; compounded by the Law of Property Act 1922 (UK Act of Parliament) which extinguished customary tenures. 

Concise history of institution

General

Brancaster lies on the north Norfolk coast: a distinctive landscape of sandy beaches, salt and fresh marshes, with high cultural and conservation value.  The surviving commons of the Norfolk coast represent a remnant of those which existed before the eighteenth century, when the bulk of the commonable arable lands were enclosed, leaving only marshes and small vestigial pockets of inland pasture.  Here, common rights were seen as existing primarily to support landless cottagers and the poor, in contrast to upland common pastures where it was typically land holders who held rights.  A wide range of common rights have been associated with the commons over time, from grazing of livestock and taking of wild fowl and gorse (Ulex europeanus), to the collection of coastal resources such as seaweed, samphire (Salicornia europaea), sea holly (Eryngium maritimum), fish, shellfish and bait.  Today, pasture rights are rarely exercised, and it is the non-grazing resources which continue to carry value.  The commons have also become important public spaces.

Institution: Manor Court

A charter of 1053, granting Brancaster to Ramsey Abbey (Huntingdonshire), provides insight into manorial lands and rights; but it is the later surviving records of the manor court which reveal aspects of collective institutional management.  An incomplete run of surviving court rolls for Brancaster from 1540 to 1687 shows the court leet making and enforcing agrarian byelaws, whilst the separate ‘port court’ controlled the use of foreshore resources.  

The business of these courts varied.  For example, the courts controlled access to resources such as gorse, bracken and reeds, whether by limiting the quantities taken by individuals or occasionally issuing periodic bans for terms of years; the court also presented and fined graziers who overstocked the commons, and those who attempted to fish or take wild fowl without right.  Officers such as ‘pinders’ or ‘common reeves’ were appointed to impound stray animals and sea reeves were appointed to oversee the foreshore.  In the modern period, however, the manor courts’ involvement in the commons gradually waned: the two last court books covering the period 1860-1935 are largely empty of common land management, save for the occasional appointment of a pinder or reeve.  Thus Brancaster conforms to a national pattern of decline in manorial activity and authority.

In 1755, land and rights in Brancaster were redistributed through an enclosure act.  The enclosure act had a relatively limited impact on the marsh commons, but a newly defined area of inland common – Barrow Common – was created from two adjacent areas of waste, and was reserved for the use of the poorer members of the community. 

More recently, Brancaster has benefited from the appearance of new management institutions, filling the vacuum left by the demise of the manor court.  In 1984, the Scolt Head and District Common Rights Holders Association was founded, and since 2000, additional stakeholder associations and management committees have been formed to manage the marsh commons and Barrow Common.  The local parish council has also played an important role.

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

• Special events: grant of Brancaster to Ramsey Abbey, 1053; pasture rights of the lord and tenants redefined in the light of marshland reclamation, 1616; enclosure act, 1755, and enclosure award, 1756.
• Lows: decline of manor court, late eighteenth century-nineteenth century.
• Specific problems: unlawful gathering of sea holly, 17th century; pressures on estovers and trespasses by those without rights, across span of records, but particularly in eighteenth century.

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

The number of jury members varied greatly, with numbers of between around 4 and 14 possible.

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or family background?

In principle, membership of manorial juries was open to all manorial tenants, but jury members were often drawn from the more substantial land holders in a manor.

Specific conditions for obtaining membership? (Entrance fee, special tests etc.)

Freeholders or tenants in the manor.

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

The manor court could not extinguish legitimate rights; but it could exclude trespassers, control access to resources and fine those commoners who broke customary byelaws (e.g. by overstocking, or collecting materials at the wrong time and from the wrong areas).

Advantages of membership?

Participation in decision-making.

Obligations of members?

Tenants were generally obliged to serve as jury members if called and may be required to undertake offices. 

Literature on case study

• Birtles, S., ‘The impact of commons registration: a Norfolk study’, Landscape History, 20 (1998), pp. 83-97.
• Birtles, S., ‘A green space beyond self-interest: the evolution of common land in Norfolk, c. 750-2003’, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of East Anglia, 2003.
• De Soissons, Maurice, Brancaster Staithe: the story of a Norfolk fishing village (Brancaster: Woodthorpe Press, 1993).
• Hart, W. H. And P. A. Lyons (eds), Cartularium Monasterii de Ramseia (Rolls Series 79, 3 vols. 1884-93, Vol. I.
• Rodgers, C. P., E. A. Straughton, A. J. L. Winchester and M. Pieraccini, Contested Common Land: Environmental Governance Past and Present (London, forthcoming in 2010).
• Williamson, T., England’s Landscape: East Anglia (London, 2006).

Sources on case study

See for example:

• The National Archives
  • Brancaster court rolls, 1540-44 (LR3/48/2-3)
• Norfolk Record Office
  • Brancaster court rolls, 1548-86 (Hare 6334-6344)
  • Brancaster court rolls, 1598-1614 (Hare)
  • Brancaster court rolls, 1622-3 (Hare 6349)
  • Brancaster court rolls, 1634-5 (Hare 6350)
  • Brancaster court rolls, 1668-70 (Hare 6354)
  • Brancaster court rolls, 1685-7 (Hare 6355)
  • Agreement between lord and tenants of Brancaster, 1615-16 (PD 379/86)
  • Brancaster court books, 1860-95 (MC 1813/29)
  • Brancaster court books, 1895-1935 (MC 1813/30)
  • Brancaster Inclosure Act 1755 (PC 86/1)
• Gloucestershire Archives
  • Brancaster court rolls, 1625-8 (D 2700, MJ19/1)
  • Brancaster court rolls, 1603-8, 1621-4, 1626-30, 1630-3, 1637-9, 1641-59, 1660-82, 1683-90 (GA D 2700, MJ19/2)
• Norfolk County Council
  • Common land register for CL 65
  • Common land register for CL 124
  • Common land register for CL 159
  • Common land register for CL 161

Links to further information on case study:

See Contested Common Land website: http://commons.ncl.ac.uk/

Case study description provided by Dr. Angus Winchester, Lancaster University and Dr. Eleanor Straughton

Typification

• Type of institution for collective action: Manor court
• Name/description institution: Manor Court of Eskdale, Miterdale and Wasdalehead
• Country: England
• Region: Cumbria
• Name of city or specified area: Eskdale Civil Parish
• Further specification location: Eskdale Common (CL 58)
• Amount of area and boundaries (for institutions related to landed property): Common land area: approx 3,071.5 ha. Note that this is the current area: the original area of commons in the manor was reduced over time through small enclosures made by individual farms, and by a substantial enclosure made at Wasdalehead in 1808.
• Recognized by local government: Yes.  The role of the manor court was recognised in wider legal and governmental structures; but its significance as an institution was fading by the nineteenth century.

Foundation – termination

• Foundation/start of institution, date or year: Medieval period; no specific date. 
• Year of termination of institution: c.1859.  Manor court activity faded over the course of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries: the last surviving court verdict is dated 1859, though a small number of jury lists and court precepts survive up to 1900.
• Year of termination estimated or confirmed: Estimated.
• Act regarding termination present: There was not a specifc act of termination; see above.
• Reason for termination: Historic trend towards the collapse of manor courts in the modern period in England and Wales; compounded by the Law of Property Act 1922 (UK Act of Parliament) which extinguished customary tenures. 

Concise history of institution

General

This extensive upland common lies in the English Lake District, supporting a traditional pastoral farming system and a landscape of high conservation value.  Manorial lordship was vested in the earls of Northumberland and their successors, the Wyndham family, from 1398 until 1979, when ownership of the common was transferred to The National Trust.  Historically, the common provided local commoners with a wide range of resources, including pasture for livestock, peat for fuel, and bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) for thatching, animal bedding and potash; today, the focus is primarily on pasture for sheep.  From the medieval period management of the common was carried out by the local manor court (Eskdale Case Study 1, i.e. this study); this was followed in 1945 by a short-lived commoners’ committee (Eskdale Case Study 2); and in 1967 by a more successful commoners’ association, which continues to manage the common today (Eskdale Case Study 3).

Institution: Manor Court

From the medieval period to the late nineteenth century, the exercise of common rights was regulated by the manor court of Eskdale, Miterdale and Wasdalehead – the traditional institution for common land management in England and Wales.  It was the lord’s court, reinforced by the presence of a steward, but it was the jury of local customary tenants which made and enforced agrarian rules.  The management regime for the exercise of pasture and turbary rights was laid out by twenty-four jurymen in a written award of 1587, known as the ‘Eskdale Twenty-Four Book’.  This award set out the uses of the different categories of land, depending on topography and grazing capacity, and recorded a designated ‘drift’ (route onto the common) and ‘heaf’ (grazing area for a specific flock) for each farm with rights to the common.  This award continued to provide a framework for the collective management of the common until well into the twentieth century.  A similar award was made for Wasdalehead in 1664, though in this case the common was later enclosed.

In addition, a long sequence of manor court verdicts running from 1678 and 1859 reveals the business of the court.  The court generally met once a year, usually in April or May, in order to regulate grazing, taking of peat and bracken, encroachments, and repairs to fences and water courses.  Commoners who broke the court’s rules were presented and fined.  Manorial officers were also appointed regularly at court sittings, including pounders (responsible for impounding stray livestock), hedge-lookers (responsible for ensuring that field boundaries were maintained), and peat-lookers (responsible for protecting peat resources).  However, from the late eighteenth century the court gradually withdrew from common land management – a pattern found in many manors in England and Wales at this time.  By the 1790s, the court was struggling to deal with disputes over heafs and encroachments, and jury members were failing to attend.  The last significant order relating to management of stock was made in 1841 to exclude diseased sheep from the common.  The last surviving court verdict dates from 1859.

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

• Special events: creation of ‘Eskdale Twenty-four Book’ in 1587; creation of Wasdalehead award, 1664; enclosure of Wasdalehead commons by private agreement, 1808; transfer of ownership to National Trust, 1979.  
• Highs: active manor court, from medieval period to mid eighteenth century.
• Lows: declining manor court, from late eighteenth century to nineteenth century.
• Problematic periods: legal dispute over encroachment, 1795; intensive sheep farming leading to pressures on resources, nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

The manor court jury was variable, but generally comprised 12-14 persons.

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or family background?

In principle, membership was open to all manorial tenants, but jury members were generally drawn from the more substantial land holders in the manor.

Specific conditions for obtaining membership? (Entrance fee, special tests etc.)

Must be freeholders or tenants of the manor.

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

The manor court could not extinguish legitimate rights or exclude legitimate commoners from the common; but it could exclude trespassers and fine those commoners who broke customary byelaws (e.g. by putting too many animals on the common).

Advantages of membership?

Participation in decision-making.

Obligations of members?

Residents were obliged to serve as jury members if called and may be required to undertake offices (constables, pounders etc.).  

Literature on case study

• Rodgers, C. P., E. A. Straughton, A. J. L. Winchester and M. Pieraccini, Contested Common Land: Environmental Governance Past and Present (London, forthcoming in 2010).
• Straughton, E.A., Common Grazing in the Northern English Uplands (Lampeter, 2008).
• Winchester, A. J. L., The Harvest of the Hills (Edinburgh, 2000).

Sources on case study

For manor court records, see for example: Manor of Eskdale, Miterdale and Wasdalehead jury verdicts, 1678-1859; estreats of fines, 1668-93; precepts and jury lists, 1678-1896 (Cumbria Record Office, D/Lec Box 94).  For Eskdale Twenty-Four Book, see for example: Copy written in 1840 into the Eskdale chapel-warden’s account book (Cumbria Record Office, YPR 4/18); Copy in solicitor’s papers, 1795 (Cumbria Record Office, D/Ben/3/761).

See also common land register for CL58, held by Cumbria County Council.

Links to further information on case study:

See Contested Common Land website: http://commons.ncl.ac.uk/

Case study description provided by Dr. Angus Winchester, Lancaster University and Dr. Eleanor Straughton

Typification

• Type of institution for collective action: Commoners’ committee
• Name/description institution: Eskdale Commoners’ Committee
• Country: England
• Region: Cumbria
• Name of city or specified area: Eskdale Civil Parish
• Further specification location: Eskdale Common (CL 58)
• Amount of area and boundaries (for institutions related to landed property): Common land area: approx 3,071.5 ha. Note that this is the current area: the original area of commons in the manor was reduced over time through small enclosures made by individual farms, and by a substantial enclosure made at Wasdalehead in 1808.
• Recognized by local government: This was voluntary association without legal power.

Foundation – termination

• Foundation/start of institution, date or year: 1945
• Confirmed year of founding or first mention: Confirmed year.
• Foundation act present: Yes
• Description of Act of foundation: A written constitution.
• Year of termination of institution: The committee appears to have faded by 1955.
• Year of termination estimated or confirmed: Estimated.
• Act regarding termination present: There was not a specifc act of termination; see above.
• Reason for termination: Not specified, but possibly due to a lack of grass-roots commitment and authority.

Concise history of institution

General

This extensive upland common lies in the English Lake District, supporting a traditional pastoral farming system and a landscape of high conservation value.  Manorial lordship was vested in the earls of Northumberland and their successors, the Wyndham family, from 1398 until 1979, when ownership of the common was transferred to The National Trust.  Historically, the common provided local commoners with a wide range of resources, including pasture for livestock, peat for fuel, and bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) for thatching, animal bedding and potash; today, the focus is primarily on pasture for sheep.  From the medieval period management of the common was carried out by the local manor court (Eskdale Case Study 1); this was followed in 1945 by a short-lived commoners’ committee (Eskdale Case Study 2, i.e. this study); and in 1967 by a more successful commoners’ association, which continues to manage the common today (Eskdale Case Study 3).

Institution: Commoners’ Committee

Documentary evidence of the management of Eskdale common is scarce in the period after the last surviving manor court verdict of 1859.  It appears that the demise of the manor court was followed by a long period without a collective management institution: quite how the common was regulated during this period is therefore unclear.  In the early 1940s, Eskdale Parish Council agreed that a new commons management institution was necessary, prompted by confusion over rights, trespasses by graziers without common rights, and questions over public footpaths.  

The founding of the new commoners’ committee was largely driven by the clerk to Eskdale Parish Council, the Reverend H. H. Symonds, who was also an influential and sometimes controversial campaigner for landscape preservation in the Lake District: he was an officer of the Friends of the Lake District and involved in national bodies such as The Ramblers’ Association and the Standing Committee for National Parks.  Symonds undertook much of the preparatory work of founding the new commoners’ committee, corresponding with the lord of the manor, drafting the constitution, and becoming the committee’s first secretary.

According to the constitution, the committee was expected to oversee the condition of walls, fences and gates; proper use of heafs (areas of grazing for specific flocks); stocking dates when animals should be taken on or off the common; illegal exercise of grazing rights and other rights by non-commoners; encroachments; and to uphold the customs of the common.  However, this committee appears to have suffered a collapse by the late 1950s: evidence given to the Royal Commission on Common Land 1955-8 suggested that the committee had fallen into disuse after the secretary had moved away.  This would seem to point to a lack of wider grassroots support for the institution.  

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

There is a lack of documentary evidence to show how the committee operated.

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

Not possible to ascertain with certainty: a voluntary association.

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or family background?

Voluntary association open to all common rights holders.

Specific conditions for obtaining membership? (Entrance fee, special tests etc.)

Not specified in constitution.

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

Not specified.

Advantages of membership?

Participation in decision-making.

Obligations of members?

Not specified.

Literature on case study

• Rodgers, C. P., E. A. Straughton, A. J. L. Winchester and M. Pieraccini, Contested Common Land: Environmental Governance Past and Present (London, forthcoming in 2010).
• Straughton, E. A., Common Grazing in the Northern English Uplands (Lampeter, 2008).
• Winchester, A.  J. L., The Harvest of the Hills (Edinburgh, 2000).

Sources on case study

Eskdale Parish Council Minute Book 1895-1963 (Cumbria Record Office, YSPC 7/2); Eskdale Commoners’ Committee Constitution, 1945, and related correspondence (Cumbria Record Office, WDSO/117/B/vi/6/4); The Ramblers’ Association, Save Our Commons: Evidence Submitted to the Royal Commission on Common Land by The Ramblers’ Association (undated, circa 1956). See also common land register for CL58, held by Cumbria County Council.

Links to further information on case study:

See Contested Common Land website: http://commons.ncl.ac.uk

Case study descritpion provided by Dr. Angus Winchester, Lancaster University and Dr. Eleanor Straughton

Typification

• Type of institution for collective action: Commoners’ association
• Name/description institution: Eskdale Commoners’ Association
• Country: England
• Region: Cumbria
• Name of city or specified area: Eskdale Civil Parish
• Further specification location: Eskdale Common (CL 58)
• Amount of area and boundaries (for institutions related to landed property): Common land area: approx 3,071.5 ha. Note that this is the current area: the original area of commons in the manor was reduced over time through small enclosures made by individual farms, and by a substantial enclosure made at Wasdalehead in 1808.
• Recognized by local government: This is a voluntary association without legal power over members.  External agencies recognise it as the institution to approach to discuss management issues.

Foundation – termination

• Foundation/start of institution, date or year: 1967
• Confirmed year of founding or first mention: Confirmed year.
• Foundation act present: Yes, a minute book and founding constitution exist.
• Description of Act of foundation: A minute book commencing 1967, which includes a constitution.
• Year of termination of institution: Not terminated: continues to operate today.

Concise history of institution

General       

This extensive upland common lies in the English Lake District, supporting a traditional pastoral farming system and a landscape of high conservation value.  Manorial lordship was vested in the earls of Northumberland and their successors, the Wyndham family, from 1398 until 1979, when ownership of the common was transferred to The National Trust.  Historically, the common provided local commoners with a wide range of resources, including pasture for livestock, peat for fuel, and bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) for thatching, animal bedding and potash; today, the focus is primarily on pasture for sheep.  From the medieval period management of the common was carried out by the local manor court (Eskdale Case Study 1); this was followed in 1945 by a short-lived commoners’ committee (Eskdale Case Study 2); and in 1967 by a more successful commoners’ association, which continues to manage the common today (Eskdale Case Study 3, i.e. this study).

Institution: Commoners’ Association

The Eskdale Commoners’ Association was founded in 1967 by a group of commoners, primarily as a response to the Commons Registration Act 1965 – a UK Act of Parliament which required the registration of all common land and rights in England and Wales.  The Eskdale association was therefore initially intended to provide a forum for negotiating and recording individual common rights and stocking numbers.  However, the association outlived this immediate function and continues to be the foremost institution for collective action on the common today.

The association followed the standard model of a civic body or voluntary association, with an elected chairperson, secretary, and treasurer, and a record of annual meetings in a minute book.  Membership was open to all those with a common right, and representatives of interested bodies were also sometimes in attendance, including representatives of the landowner, The National Trust, The Forestry Commission, the National Farmers’ Union, and English Nature.

Two minute books exist, covering the periods 1967-80 and 1980-95 respectively, and these provide insight into the activities of the meeting.  Since 1967, association business has included a range of land use issues, such as protection of heafs (areas of grazing for specific flocks), negotiation of agri-environment agreements, and problems such as heather loss, off-road vehicles, unlawful fencing, and trespasses by animals from neighbouring commons.  A new set of land management rules was adopted in 1980 and the association’s constitution was updated in 1982.  This body has therefore evolved since 1967, being regularly refined and adapted by its members to improve its functions and accommodate shifts in agrarian policy and socio-economic change.

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

• Special events: transfer of ownership to National Trust; agreeing new set of land-use rules, 1980; updating of constitution, 1982.
• Highs: negotiation with external bodies, especially in relation to agri-environment agreements; long-term commitment of members.
• Specific problems: land management issues such as heather loss, pressures of public access, trespasses by animals from neighbouring commons; and rights issues, such as apportionment of rights and the role of inactive graziers.
• Problematic periods: complex process of registering rights, 1967-8.

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

Numbers attending annual meetings could vary between around 10-20 persons, but generally comprised around 12 persons, with observers sometimes also in attendence.

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or family background?

Voluntary association open to all those with common rights; representatives of other interested bodies also attending from time to time.

Specific conditions for obtaining membership? (Entrance fee, special tests etc.)

Open to all with common rights.

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

Not specified.

Advantages of membership?

Participation in decision-making; collective negotiating position with external bodies.

Obligations of members?

Contributions towards Association expenses.

Literature on case study

• Rodgers, C. P., E. A. Straughton, A. J. L. Winchester and M. Pieraccini, Contested Common Land: Environmental Governance Past and Present (London, forthcoming in 2010).
• Straughton, E.A., Common Grazing in the Northern English Uplands (Lampeter, 2008).
• Winchester, A. J. L., The Harvest of the Hills (Edinburgh, 2000).

Sources on case study

Eskdale Commoners’ Association minute books (Volume 1, 1967-1980; Volume 2, 1980-1995) (private ownership, Eskdale Commoners’ Association).  See also common land register for CL58, held by Cumbria County Council.

Links to further information on case study:

See Contested Common Land website: http://commons.ncl.ac.uk

Case study description provided by Dr. Angus Winchester, Lancaster University and Dr. Eleanor Straughton

Typification

• Type of institution for collective action: Commoners’ meeting
• Name/description institution: Thornham Commoners’ Meeting
• Country: England
• Region: Norfolk
• Name of city or specified area: Thornham Civil Parish
• Further specification location: Thornham Common (CL 41) and Thornham Low Common (CL 56) 
• Amount of area and boundaries (for institutions related to landed property): Today, the major registered common land units in Thornham consist of:
  • Thornham Common: 225 ha
  • Thornham Low Common: 74 ha
• Defining the area of common lands in Thornham at any given time is complicated by an unstable coastline and by changes in land use and ownership.  A process of enclosure in the late eighteenth century redistributed common land and rights, and some areas, such as Thornham Ling common, were lost at this time.
• Recognized by local government: The enclosure act and award would probably have given this body greater legal weight than a purely voluntary association, but the need for government recognition does not seem to have arisen. 

Foundation – termination

• Foundation/start of institution, date or year: 1794
• Confirmed year of founding or first mention: Confirmed year.
• Foundation act present: Yes, an enclosure act of 1794 and subsequent award of 1797 are in existence.
• Description of Act of foundation: The act of foundation was an act of parliamentary enclosure, followed by a written award which put the terms of the act into practice.
• Year of termination of institution: Late twentieth century.
• Year of termination estimated or confirmed: Estimated: a gradual lapse in annual meetings.
• Act regarding termination present: There was not a specific act of termination; see above.
• Reason for termination: Not confirmed, but probably related to 1) concentration of rights in fewer hands and 2) disuse of pasture rights as grazing became less important.

Concise history of institution

General

Thornham lies on the north Norfolk coast: a distinctive landscape of salt and fresh marshes, with high cultural and conservation value.  The surviving commons of the Norfolk coast represent a remnant of those which existed before the eighteenth century, when the bulk of the commonable arable lands were enclosed, leaving only marshes and small vestigial pockets of inland pasture.  Here, common rights were seen as existing primarily to support landless cottagers and the poor, in contrast to upland common pastures where it was typically land holders who held rights.  A wide range of common rights have been associated with the commons over time, from grazing of livestock and taking of wild fowl and gorse (Ulex europeanus), to the collection of coastal resources such as seaweed, samphire (Salicornia europaea), fish, shellfish and bait.  Today, pasture rights are rarely exercised, and it is the non-grazing resources which continue to carry value.

Institution: Commoners’ Meeting

From the medieval period until the late eighteenth century, the commons of Thornham were regulated by Thornham manor court (Thornham Case Study 1).  However, an enclosure act of 1794 and award of 1797 enabled large areas of land to be enclosed and the saltmarsh commons converted into stinted pasture.  The award of 1797 set out a new system of management, instructing stint-holders to hold an annual meeting in the porch of Thornham church for the election and direction of three common reeves.  Reeves were given the task of regulating the common and impounding stray animals; they could also buy a bull, and undertake drainage and land improvements.  The award also stated that the reeves were to keep a rule book for the common, though no trace of this volume has been found.  Common rights owners had to pay an annual fee to the reeves, at a rate agreed by the majority of owners.

In addition to this founding document, Thornham benefits from the survival of a minute book, covering the period 1924-1951.  It is not known whether this was a first attempt to record annual meetings or whether previous volumes have been lost.  Between 1924-51, the meeting generally consisted of between 3 and 6 people, and was usually chaired by the major rights-owner (also the lord of the manor).  The system of appointing reeves continued until the last entry of 1951, though their number had reduced from three to two.  Meeting business ranged from livestock management to ongoing maintenance issues, such as rubbish dumped on the common and the repair of gates, drains and roads.  The minute book also records the impact of requisitioning of an area of the common by the Royal Air Force during the Second World War.

Annual meetings faded in the late twentieth century, and grazing rights are now rarely exercised.  Common land matters are generally referred to the parish council.

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

• Special events: 1794 act and 1797 award; requisitioning by RAF in Second World War.
• Highs: active meetings, 1924-51.
• Lows: declining meetings in late twentieth century.
• Problems: problematic period of registration under the Commons Registration Act 1965. 

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

The enclosure award created 49 stints (common rights), naming some 35 people as recipients of these rights.  Evidence is lacking to show how many eligible stint-holders attended meetings immediately after 1797, but it is known that over time, the lord of the manor purchased the majority of stints.  In the period 1924-51, covered by the Thornham minute book, the number of people attending annual meetings varied between three and six people.  

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or family background?

Membership was open to anyone with stints on the common.

Specific conditions for obtaining membership? (Entrance fee, special tests etc.)

Must be a stint holder.

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

Any common right owner who failed to pay a fee to the reeve within 14 days of the demand would be barred from the common and have their animals driven off. 

Advantages of membership?

Participation in management decisions and voting rights.

Obligations of members?

Payment of annual fees to cover reeves’ wages and maintenance issues.

Literature on case study

• Birtles, S., ‘The impact of commons registration: a Norfolk study’, Landscape History, 20 (1998), pp. 83-97. 
• Birtles, S., ‘A green space beyond self-interest: the evolution of common land in Norfolk, c. 750-2003’, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of East Anglia, 2003. 
• Rodgers, C. P., E. A. Straughton, A. J. L. Winchester and M. Pieraccini, Contested Common Land: Environmental Governance Past and Present (London, forthcoming in 2010).
• Williamson, T., England’s Landscape: East Anglia (London, 2006).

Sources on case study

See for examples:

• Norfolk Record Office
  • Thornham enclosure act, 1794 (copy) (Bett 14/6/79 Hogge Deeds G2; G4)
  • Thornham enclosure award and map, 1797 (PC 9/1-2)
  • Thornham Common minute book, 1924-1951 (H. Bett, 14/6/79/28)
• Norfolk County Council
  • Common land register, CL 49
  • Common land register, CL 56

Links to further information on case study:

See Contested Common Land website: http://commons.ncl.ac.uk

Case study description provided by Dr. Angus Winchester, Lancaster University and Dr. Eleanor Straughton

Typification

• Type of institution for collective action: Manor courts
• Name/description institution: Manor courts of Cwmdeuddwr Grange and Cwmdeuddwr.
• Country: Wales
• Region: Powys
• Name of city or specified area: Llantsantfraid Cwmdeuddwr Civil Parish, Elan & Claerwen Valleys
• Further specification location: Cwmdeuddwr Commons
• Amount of area and boundaries (for institutions related to landed property): Historically: c. 11,663 ha. This area comprised the upland pastures of the commote of Cwmdeuddwr, and the wastes of the two manors of Grange of Cwmdeuddwr and Cwmdeuddwr.  However, in the late 19th century these common pastures were divided into two distinct land units: the Elan Valley Estate (see Cwmdeuddwr Case Study 2) and Cwmdeuddwr Common (see Cwmdeuddwr Case Study 3).
• Recognized by local government: The role of the manor court was recognised in the wider legal and governmental structure; but its significance as an institution was fading by the nineteenth century.

Foundation – termination

• Foundation/start of institution, date or year: Medieval period; no specific date.
• Year of termination of institution: 1892
• Year of termination estimated or confirmed: Confirmed.
• Act regarding termination present: Yes, a parliamentary act is in existence.
• Description Act of termination: This was a parliamentary act which empowered Birmingham Corporation to purchase large areas of the commons in order to create reservoirs for supplying water to the city of Birmingham, signaling also the end of manorial control. 
• Reason for termination: Birmingham Corporation wished to purchase large areas of the commons in order to create reservoirs for supplying water to the city of Birmingham.  This change in land status and ownership signaled the end of manorial control.  However, it should be noted that the manor courts of Cwmdeuddwr were already in decline, following a historic trend towards the collapse of manor courts in the modern period in England and Wales.

Concise history of institution

General

This case study centres on upland pastures in the Elan and Claerwen valleys, in the parish of Llansantfraid Cwmdeuddwr in Mid Wales.  Originally forming the upland grange for Strata Florida Abbey, this area comprised the two manors of Grange of Cwmdeuddwr and Cwmdeuddwr, which came into single ownership in 1825 (Cwmdeuddwr Case Study 1, i.e. this study).  The upland landscape provided the community with pasture for livestock (organised through a pattern of ‘sheepwalks’: areas of grazing reserved for designated flocks); peat (an important fuel into the twentieth century); and estovers.  This pattern of landownership and land use went through dramatic changes in the late nineteenth century, when large areas were purchased by Birmingham Corporation for the creation of reservoirs.  Birmingham’s purchase created a large new estate – the Elan Valley Estate – replacing common rights with tenancies (Cwmdeuddwr Case Study 2); whilst those remnants of waste not purchased were put together to form Cwmdeuddwr Common (Cwmdeuddwr Case Study 3).  Though these contiguous lands have different legal status, they remain open and unfenced, and continue to be used as communal hill grazings today.

Institution: Manor Courts

Evidence suggests that manorial governance was not particularly strong or consistent in Cwmdeuddwr – it is not certain that Strata Florida’s grange of Cwmdeuddwr had the status of a manor in the medieval period.  Nevertheless, post-Dissolution owners seem to have introduced a recognisable manor court system.  Almost all the surviving court records fall within the period 1722-1879.  Records for the smaller manor of Cwmdeuddwr range from 1371 to 1891, though they include only a small number of court rolls and presentments.  The union of the two manors after 1825 eventually resulted in the merging of court juries. 

These surviving records provide information about manorial governance and the collective decision-making of juries.  A presentment book of 1722-1817, and two court rolls (dated 1873 and 1878), for the Grange of Cwmdeuddwr, are particularly rich in detail.  These suggest that the court sometimes met twice a year in the eighteenth century, though by the 19th century, court sittings had become highly infrequent.  On the whole, the focus appears to have been on the exclusion of trespassers rather than on close management of those with legitimate rights.  Control of ‘foreign’ or trespassing livestock was one of the most frequent subjects of presentments.  Orders against illegal turf-cutting were also a regular element of court business: peat was an important fuel in this remote area, closely guarded from intruders from outside the manor.  Other issues tackled by the court included the getting of stone and estovers, encroachments and the erection of cottages on the waste.  Various officers were appointed, though not necessarily at every sitting, including a bailiff, reeve, hayward, petty constables, and affearors. 

Whilst manor court sittings became less frequent in the nineteenth century – in common with the general trend seen elsewhere – an obvious and sudden break in management systems occurred as a result of the Birmingham Corporation Water Act of 1892 and the land purchases which followed (see Cwmdeuddwr Case Studies 2 & 3).

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

• Special events: Birmingham Corporation Water Act 1892.
• Highs: active period – eighteenth century.
• Lows: period of decline – nineteenth century.
• Problematic periods: struggle to control trespassing stock (possibly due to a tradition of agistment) and encroachments on the commons, eighteenth century.

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

Jury numbers varied, generally around 14-17 persons.

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or family background?

In principle, membership was open to all manorial tenants, but jury members were probably drawn from the more substantial land holders in the manor.

Specific conditions for obtaining membership? (Entrance fee, special tests etc.)

Freeholders or tenants of the manor.

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

The manor court could not extinguish legitimate rights or exclude legitimate commoners from the common; but it could exclude trespassers and fine those commoners who broke customary byelaws (e.g. by putting too many animals on the common).

Advantages of membership?

Participation in decision making.

Obligations of members?

Tenants were obliged to serve as jury members if called and may be required to undertake offices (constables etc.). 

Literature on case study

•  B[anks], R. W. 1880. ‘The Grange of Cwmtoyddwr’, Archaeologia Cambrensis, 4th ser. XI (1880), 30-50.
• Clywd-Powys Archaeological Trust, ‘The Making of the Elan Valley Landscape’ at http://www.cpat.org.uk/projects/longer/histland/elan/evintr.htm.
• Davies, Elwyn,  ‘Hafod, Hafoty and Lluest: their distribution, features and purpose’, Ceredigion 9 (1) (1980), 1-41.
• Rodgers, C. P., E. A. Straughton, A. J. L. Winchester and M. Pieraccini, Contested Common Land: Environmental Governance Past and Present (London, forthcoming in 2010).
• Silvester, R. J., ‘The Commons and the waste: use and misuse in mid-Wales’, in I. D. Whyte and A. J. L. Winchester (eds), Society, Landscape and Environment in Upland Britain (Birmingham: Society for Landscape Studies, 2004), pp. 53-66.

Sources on case study

• Manor of Grange of Cwmdeuddwr: Records survive in the National Library of Wales (e.g. presentment, 1757: Dolaucothi MSS & Papers schedule II p.16, MS vol. 12 (57), and Powys County Archive Office (e.g. list of farms, 1600-1700: R/D/LEW/5/135; list of lords and stewards, 1722-1889: R/D/LEW/5/133-4; presentment book, 1722-1817: R/D/Lew/3/96-97; courts rolls, extracts rel to boundaries, 1809-1839: R/D/LEW/5/136; precepts to summon court (3) 1837-1844: R/D/LEW/5/138-40; court roll, 1873: R/D/LEW/5/141; court roll, 1878: R/D/LEW/5/142).  
• Manor of Cwmdeuddwr: Records survive in the National Library of Wales (e.g. letters patent, 1633: Harpton Court vol 1, p.31, 1715-16; court rolls, 1688: Powis Manorial records group II, p.179, various manors;  legal papers, 1800-1899: NLW MS 12878D MSS vol. IV; recognition of western boundary, 1842 (copy): Crosswood Group 1, p. 406, II.1207-8); Powys County Archive Office (e.g. misc. notes, extracted from court rolls, 1780-1878: R/D/Lew/5/145; correspondence rel to properties, 1844-1880: R/D/LEW/5/146-81; court roll, 1873: R/D/LEW/5/143; court roll, 1878: R/D/LEW/5/144; statement of boundaries, 1891: R/D/LEW/5/182-83), and The National Archives (e.g. estreat roll, 1530-1532: SC 2/227/50; estreat rolls, 1581-1602: LR 11/55/795-56/809; estreat rolls, 1614-1616: LR 11/57/812-813; survey, 1650: E 317/Radnorshire/1; papers rel to value, extent and ownership, 1672-1796: C 107/35; estreat roll, 1674-1676: SC 2/227/67; estreat rolls, 1680-1692: LR 11/57/820-822; estreat roll, 1686-1688: SC 2/227/71; presentments, 1780-1786: CRES 5/192; also various ministers’, reeves’ and foresters’  accounts in classes SC 6 and LR 8).
• Printed parliamentary act: Birmingham Corporation Water Act of 1892 (55 & 56 Vict., c. clxxiii).     
• See also common land register for registered common RCL 36 (Cwmdeuddwr) and de-registered common RCL 66 (Elan Estate), held by Powys County Council.

Links to further information on case study:

See Contested Common Land website: http://commons.ncl.ac.uk

Case description provided by Dr. Angus Winchester, Lancaster University and Dr. Eleanor Straughton 

Typification

• Type of institution for collective action: Estate, comprising management body and tenants’ association.
• Name/description institution: Elan Valley Estate of Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water
• Country: Wales
• Region: Powys
• Name of city or specified area: Llansantfraid Cwmdeuddwr Civil Parish, Elan and Claerwen Valleys
• Further specification location: Elan Valley Estate
• Amount of area and boundaries (for institutions related to landed property): c. 6,668 ha. Note: the Estate itself has wider holdings; this figure is a discrete area of hill grazing, previously belonging to the manors of Grange of Cwmdeuddwr and Cwmdeuddwr, and provisionally registered as common land unit RCL 66 (subsequently deregistered).
• Recognized by local government: Yes, the Estate has the legal status of a private estate.

Foundation – termination

• Foundation/start of institution, date or year: 1892
• Confirmed year of founding or first mention: Confirmed.
• Foundation act present: Yes, a parliamentary act is in existence.
• Description of Act of foundation: This was a parliamentary act which empowered Birmingham Corporation to purchase large areas of the commons in order to create reservoirs for supplying water to the city of Birmingham. 
• Year of termination of institution: Not terminated: still in operation.

Concise history of institution

General                                                        

This case study centres on upland pastures in the Elan and Claerwen valleys, in the parish of Llansantfraid Cwmdeuddwr in Mid Wales.  Originally forming the upland grange for Strata Florida Abbey, this area comprised the two manors of Grange of Cwmdeuddwr and Cwmdeuddwr, which came into single ownership in 1825 (Cwmdeuddwr Case Study 1).  The upland landscape provided the community with pasture for livestock (organised through a pattern of ‘sheepwalks’: areas of grazing reserved for designated flocks); peat (an important fuel into the 20th century); and estovers.  This pattern of landownership and land use went through dramatic changes in the late 19th century, when large areas were purchased by Birmingham Corporation for the creation of reservoirs.  Birmingham’s purchase created a large new estate – the Elan Valley Estate – replacing common rights with tenancies (Cwmdeuddwr Case Study 2, i.e. this study); whilst those remnants of waste not purchased were put together to form Cwmdeuddwr Common (Cwmdeuddwr Case Study 3).  Though these contiguous lands have different legal status, they remain open and unfenced, and continue to be used as communal hill grazings today.

Institution: Elan Valley Estate

In the wake of the 1892 Act, graziers no longer had a common right to traditional sheepwalks on Estate land, but they could rent sheepwalks back from the Elan Estate, and in many respects grazing went on much as it had done before.  Management was closely controlled by the Estate and tenancy agreements stipulated those activities which tenants could engage in: the overriding goal now was to provide clean supplies of water.  Thus early tenancy agreements of 1902 contain clauses designed to prevent pollution, damage or alteration to the land surface of the watershed.  For example, tenants were prevented from washing sheep at locations other than those stipulated by the Corporation, and the Corporation built new wash folds in safe locations.

The introduction of the Elan Estate marked a major break in the previous manorial management regime, but there were also continuities: for example, the preservation of an open landscape, communal grazing and traditional sheepwalks.  The boundary between the land areas of the Elan Valley Estate and Cwmdeuddwr Common was artificial, determined by the watershed rather than historic territories, and indeed the new boundary remained unfenced.  Thus, there were many overlapping interests.  Some of the tenants of the Elan Valley Estate also had common rights to Cwmdeuddwr Common, and for many years they had a joint collective association, the Elan Valley Graziers’ Association.  This body had to split in 1990 when the different land ownership and legal status of the two areas required separate negotiations for agri-environment schemes.   The Elan Valley Graziers’ Association continued to represent estate tenants, whilst the Cwmdeuddwr Commoners’ and Graziers’ Association was set up for Cwmdeuddwr Common (see Cwmdeuddwr Case Study 3).  Thus the post-manorial management institutions have perhaps been less influenced by dramatic changes in landownership than by external agrarian policies.  Records relating to the Elan Valley Graziers’ Association were not located or available, hence details are limited.

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

• Special events: Birmingham Corporation Water Act 1892.

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

Not known.

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or family background?

Open to graziers of the Elan Estate.

Specific conditions for obtaining membership? (Entrance fee, special tests etc.)

Open to graziers of the Elan Estate.

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

Not known.

Advantages of membership?

Membership of Elan Valley Graziers’ Association enabled members to take part in collective negotiations with the Estate and external agencies.

Obligations of members?

Not known.

Literature on case study

• B[anks], R. W. 1880. ‘The Grange of Cwmtoyddwr’, Archaeologia Cambrensis, 4th ser. XI (1880), 30-50.
• Clywd-Powys Archaeological Trust, ‘The Making of the Elan Valley Landscape’ at http://www.cpat.org.uk/projects/longer/histland/elan/evintr.htm.
• Davies, Elwyn,  ‘Hafod, Hafoty and Lluest: their distribution, features and purpose’, Ceredigion 9 (1) (1980), 1-41.
• Rodgers, C. P., E. A. Straughton, A. J. L. Winchester and M. Pieraccini, Contested Common Land: Environmental Governance Past and Present (London, forthcoming in 2010).
• Silvester, R. J., ‘The Commons and the waste: use and misuse in mid-Wales’, in I. D. Whyte and A. J. L. Winchester (eds), Society, Landscape and Environment in Upland Britain (Birmingham: Society for Landscape Studies, 2004), pp. 53-66. 

Sources on case study

• Printed parliamentary act: Birmingham Corporation Water Act of 1892 (55 & 56 Vict., c. clxxiii). 
• Private records owned by the Elan Valley Estate: for example, Elan Estate Office: Estate plans and terrier, covering dates c. 1892-1913 (with additions to 1932). 
• Also Welsh Water Authority records and tenancy agreements deposited with Powys County Archives: for example, R/D/WWA/1A/A7/47/1, Parc tenancy agreement, 1902.
• Records of the Elan Valley Graziers’ Association have not been located.
• See also common land register for de-registered common RCL 66 (Elan Estate), held by Powys County Council.

Links to further information on case study:

See Contested Common Land website: http://commons.ncl.ac.uk

Case study description provided by Dr. Angus Winchester, Lancaster University and Dr. Eleanor Straughton

Typification

• Type of institution for collective action: Commoners’ association
• Name/description institution: Cwmdeuddwr Commoners’ and  Graziers’ Association
• Country: Wales
• Region: Powys
• Name of city or specified area: Llansantfraid Cwmdeuddwr Civil Parish, Elan and Claerwen Valleys
• Further specification location: Cwmdeuddwr Common (RCL 36)
• Amount of area and boundaries (for institutions related to landed property): Registered common land area: c. 1,887.16 ha
• Recognized by local government?As a voluntary association it does not have legal power over members, but it is recognised as a negotiating body for agreeing agri-environment schemes.

Foundation – termination

• Foundation/start of institution, date or year: 1990
• Confirmed year of founding or first mention: Year of foundation.
• Foundation act present: Yes, a constitution is in existence.
• Description of Act of foundation: A written constitution set outs the terms of the association.
• Year of termination of institution: Not terminated: still in operation.

Concise history of institution

General

This case study centres on upland pastures in the Elan and Claerwen valleys, in the parish of Llansantfraid Cwmdeuddwr in Mid Wales.  Originally forming the upland grange for Strata Florida Abbey, this area comprised the two manors of Grange of Cwmdeuddwr and Cwmdeuddwr, which came into single ownership in 1825 (Cwmdeuddwr Case Study 1).  The upland landscape provided the community with pasture for livestock (organised through a pattern of ‘sheepwalks’: areas of grazing reserved for designated flocks); peat (an important fuel into the twentieth century); and estovers.  This pattern of landownership and land use went through dramatic changes in the late nineteenth century, when large areas were purchased by Birmingham Corporation for the creation of reservoirs.  Birmingham’s purchase created a large new estate – the Elan Valley Estate – replacing common rights with tenancies (Cwmdeuddwr Case Study 2); whilst those remnants of waste not purchased were put together to form Cwmdeuddwr Common (Cwmdeuddwr Case Study 3, i.e. this study).  Though these contiguous lands have different legal status, they remain open and unfenced, and continue to be used as communal hill grazings today.

Institution: Cwmdeuddwr Commoners’ and Graziers’ Association

When Birmingham Corporation purchased large areas of the Cwmdeuddwr uplands – which

became the Elan Valley Estate – the remainder of the Cwmdeuddwr lands became Cwmdeuddwr Common (RCL 36).  This new area in fact comprised sections of the wastes of both the manors of Grange of Cwmdeudder and Cwmdeuddwr.  Thus the boundary between the land areas of the Elan Valley Estate and Cwmdeuddwr Common was artificial, determined by the watershed rather than historic territories, and indeed the new boundary remained unfenced.  There were many overlapping interests.  Some of the tenants of the Elan Valley Estate also had common rights to Cwmdeuddwr Common, and for many years they had a joint collective association, the Elan Valley Graziers’ Association.  This body had to split in 1990 when the different land ownership and legal status of the two areas required separate negotiations for Environmentally Sensitive Area agri-environment schemes.   At this point, the Cwmdeuddwr Commoners’ and Graziers’ Association was set up for Cwmdeuddwr Common.  Thus the post-manorial management institutions have perhaps been less influenced by dramatic changes in landownership than by external agrarian policies.

The Cwmdeuddwr Commoners’ and Graziers’ Association is an active body with the standard structure of a voluntary association, with a chairperson and officers.  The Association has managed the commoners’ entry into agri-environment schemes and continues to monitor compliance. The focus is on local, informal negotiation to resolve breaches of rules and grazing problems.  The Association also attempts to regulate traffic (a road runs across the common) and to minimize damage by off-road vehicles.

Some degree of communal management is visible in the landscape itself, notably in the twentieth-century washfold, in use until the 1970s, and the sheep sorting fold in the Nant Gwynllyn valley, which were used by different commoners, rather than being private folds.

Special events? Highs and lows? Specific problems or problematic periods?

• Highs: collective negotiation of agri-environment agreements.

Membership

Numbers of members (specified)

Not known.

Membership attainable for every one, regardless of social class or family background?

Open to those with rights to Cwmdeuddwr Common.

Specific conditions for obtaining membership? (Entrance fee, special tests etc.)

Open to those with rights to Cwmdeuddwr Common.

Specific reasons regarding banning members from the institution?

Not specified.

Advantages of membership?

Particpation in decion-making; collective negotiation of agri-environment agreements.

Obligations of members?

Not specified.

Literature on case study

• B[anks], R. W. 1880. ‘The Grange of Cwmtoyddwr’, Archaeologia Cambrensis, 4th ser. XI (1880), 30-50.
• Clywd-Powys Archaeological Trust, ‘The Making of the Elan Valley Landscape’ at http://www.cpat.org.uk/projects/longer/histland/elan/evintr.htm.
• Davies, Elwyn,  ‘Hafod, Hafoty and Lluest: their distribution, features and purpose’, Ceredigion 9 (1) (1980), 1-41.
• Rodgers, C. P., E. A. Straughton, A. J. L. Winchester and M. Pieraccini, Contested Common Land: Environmental Governance Past and Present (London, forthcoming in 2010).
• Silvester, R. J., ‘The Commons and the waste: use and misuse in mid-Wales’, in I. D. Whyte and A. J. L. Winchester (eds), Society, Landscape and Environment in Upland Britain (Birmingham: Society for Landscape Studies, 2004), pp. 53-66. 

Sources on case study

Oral evidence and focus group data collected by the Contested Common Land Project (contact via website: see below).  See also common land register for registered common RCL 36 (Cwmdeuddwr), held by Powys County Council.

Links to further information on case study:

See Contested Common Land website: http://commons.ncl.ac.uk/

Case study description provided by Dr. Angus Winchester, Lancaster University and Dr. Eleanor Straughton