#RudeOutdoors: Fanny Bridge

The tweet below was shared by @cumbrianrambler a couple of month’s ago. One of the first things I noticed was the conveniently located #rudeoutdoors eligible location of Fanny Bridge in one of the maps in the thread. It’s included below for your sniggering pleasure. But, for once, I really did have an ulterior motive for sharing this particular #rudeoutdoors moment…

The question posed, and the replies to the thread, are a pretty textbook example of the range of views relating to Rights of Way questions. So I wanted to have a look at some of the proposed solutions.

No access to Fanny Hill, except by the back way…

The issue raised is simple: there is a Public Footpath running across a field (on the map below the green dotted line running through the middle of the large field below Bond’s End). But the farmer has not maintained it, and now there are crops growing on it to the point it’s indistinguishable. What do you do?fbridge

Plough on through? Not the most popular answer in the thread, with many commenting that this would be disrespectful to the farmer, who is, after all, only trying to earn a living. If you did chose to do this however, so long as you could show you have stuck to the route*, you are, legally, absolutely in the right. You do, however, risk an angry farmer challenging you – just because you are in the right, doesn’t mean you will always be treated as such!

Walk round the edge? This was possibly the most popular answer, with people feeling this respected the crop, while still finding a way through. But, this is also why I wanted to blog about this. Because I think it’s also the most problematic (at least at this location). Once you divert from the legal definitive route you are technically trespassing. None of the information presented suggests the farmer wants you to go round the field edge, no polite sign etc. So not only do you still risk an angry farmer, you have also left your legal Right of Way.

Use the other Public Footpath just to the south? It’s close by. It’s a legal route. Leads to the same place. Isn’t much longer. Perfect right? It’s possible this is even the intention, as this path actually runs more round the field edge. But, if the overgrown path is owned by a different farmer, increasing the footfall on Path B may well antagonise that landowner (the eagle-eyed will spot the risk of a grumpy farmer is a theme for this blog post!). The second path seems to run through a farm yard, or very close to buildings.

What would Theresa May do? Well, it’s a matter of public record what Theresa May would do. But we can’t all approach life with the kind of cavalier disrespect for landowners and farmers our Prime Minister, on her most naughty of days, shows can we? maxresdefault

What would I do? In truth, none of the options are perfect. The safest bet is probably taking the second path. But depending on what mood I’m in, what the conditions on the day are, I could see myself doing any of the three options. I do sympathise with the desire to keep the farmer on side – and it’s good to see so many walkers taking the farmer’s needs seriously. But, they do have a legal obligation to maintain the route – and it’s in their interests to avoid people randomly marching around/across their field when faced with an overgrown path. A politely-worded sign indicating their request (you are not obliged!) would be enough for most of us to happily, and confidently, divert. Of course, if all farmers do it you’ll soon be zig-zagging cross-country on every hike, but they won’t!

Report it! The one thing I definitely would do is report it. Again, despite respect and understanding for the farmer, this is a legal Right of Way. This option isn’t quick – but for the individual it is the safest. Take a photo, and send it to your local Council’s Rights of Way team. It’s also recommended to send it to your local Ramblers or Open Spaces Society reps. They will almost always, between them, have volunteers who pick up these issues with the council, and can often recommend suggested approaches to the route if they know the area. If you do, consider joining them too – they can’t help protect our network of Rights of Way with we don’t support them to do so! Most farmers will also be in receipt of a public subsidy that requires them not to be breaking any laws, such as not maintaining a Right of Way, so you could also report it to the Rural Payment’s Agency, though your chances of success this route are, erm, slim.

*Assuming in this blog the green lines marked on the OS map are consistent with the local council’s Definitive Map and so are legal Rights of Way

Advertisements

A Principled Approach

This is a post I’ve been wanting to get around to writing for a little while. It’s an issue that comes up often, but one tweet yesterday (or the article it linked to)  really pushed me over the edge on this one:

“Do you agree,” they ask. No sirs. I do not.

The article is a diatribe on the subject of the management of our National Parks. Nothing intrinsically wrong there, it’d be a bit pot/kettle/black for me to decry a good diatribe. They do work best, however, when you agree with the steam being vented.

The two bits that particular ruffled my feathers were:

“It is shameful that the National Park Authority have to be reminded of their fundamental duty as guardians of perhaps our most-loved National Park but as FLD point out, much of the Local Plan “conflicts directly with the Sandford Principle, which prioritises the environment and landscape of the Lake District over damaging development” (Emphasis added)

And:

“Their primary responsibility is to care for the natural beauty and cultural values of the National Park, and that responsibility comes way before anything else. This is what the Sandford Principle means…” (Emphasis added)

What is The Sandford Principle, and what are the duties of National Parks?

Ah, the Sandford Principle. Much quoted. Much abused. The principle, as coded into legislation, attempts to create a balance between the conservation remit of a National Park and its remit to promote access to them.

But we are getting ahead of ourselves.

National Parks in England and Wales have two statutory purposes. These are defined in the Environment Act 1995. This amended the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and defined these two purposes:

“(a) of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the areas specified in the next following subsection; and

(b) of promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those areas by the public.

Now. There will always be some situations where such dual roles clash. So, for the first time, the Environment Act 1995 also codified into law the Sandford Principle, which had been around since the 1960s, using slightly different wording to that proposed originally by Lord Sandford. The Act states that relevant authorities should:

“have regard to the purposes specified […] and, if it appears that there is a conflict between those purposes, shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area comprised in the National Park.”

So what does this mean?

The two quoted sections from the legislation have clear, but often misunderstood, and frequently misused, interpretations and effects:

Conserving and enhancing: This is fairly clear*. National Parks have a legal duty to work to conserve and enhance the environment – both natural and cultural.

Promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment…: This is less clear, and sometimes misunderstood. The word ‘access’ doesn’t appear in this sentence. But it is widely accepted that promoting and improving access to the landscapes within a National Park is at the very core of this purpose. This is so well established that any claim otherwise is simply disingenuous.

Both of these hold equal weight: These two purposes are statutory requirements of a National Park. They aren’t ‘nice to do’ or ‘so long as everyone is happy’ – both purposes carry equal weight and National Park Authorities (and other Authorities with remits within National Parks) are legally required to work on both.

Sandford does not mean conservation has a greater priority than sandfordaccess/enjoyment: This is what so riled me about the article quoted at the start of this post. As a reminder this stated, “that responsibility [to conservation] comes way before anything else”. It does not. The Sandford Principle is a subtle tool for getting out of the occasional rock-and-a-hard-place situations having two equally-weighted purposes can bring. It isn’t a silver bullet to kill dead any new development or initiative just because someone or some group doesn’t like it.

Despite this, it is often claimed that  the law means conservation is the primary purpose. But my question would be: if the legislation had intended one of the purposes to be primary, and one subservient, would the Sandford Principle really have been the best way to achieve that? After all, the legislation also states:

“A National Park authority, in pursuing in relation to the National Park the purposes specified in […] this Act, shall seek to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities within the National Park, but without incurring significant expenditure in doing so, and shall for that purpose co-operate with local authorities and public bodies whose functions include the promotion of economic or social development within the area of the National Park.”

This is legislation speak for ‘try to create economic development as you carry out your duties’. This is a duty, but clearly defined by the legislation as being secondary to the two purposes. If the legislation had intended one purpose to hold a greater priority it would have made that explicit. It wouldn’t have used (nor would it have needed) a clever backstop like the Sandford Principle.

This is fundamental to our National Parks. Sandford doesn’t mean that conservation has overall priority – just that where careful management, clever engagement, proactive co-operation are not enough to mitigate against an irrevocable** conflict between the two purposes than then conservation should carry greater weightIt’s nuanced to have two rules with equal weight, but with a release-valve mechanism to settle an intractable clash. But that doesn’t mean we should lose the nuance – we should protect it. But it is hard to challenge the now deeply entrenched view that the Sandford Principle prioritises conservation such that National Park Authorities (and others) are obliged to attach more weight to conservation than anything else.

So why does it matter – I’m a conservationist aren’t I?

Yes, of course I am. It feels very uncomfortable to be making an argument when I know it could be interpreted as a belief that access should have no limits, or that I’m anti-conservation. That is one big reason why this matters so much. The Sandford Principle is a quite neat little bit of legislation that actually helps access and conservation work together for the sustainable access to the outdoors we all want.

But there are other reasons why this matters:

National Parks grew from the access movement

This is perhaps just a personal reflection, but our National Parks are a direct result of the campaigns in the early 1900s to get the need for greater access to the outdoors recognised. Without those campaigns there would be no National Parks now. Conservation and access grew up together here – we should continue growing together – we are stronger together.

Disadvantaged groups / those less likely to be engaged

There are still a lot of people who don’t access the outdoors and find it difficult to do so. And projects to help mitigate this are often shouted down for quite spurious reasons, resting on Sandford. One of the targets for the rage of the TGO article was a proposed trail around Derwentwater: “A multi-user trail would almost certainly mean extensive stretches of boardwalk or surfaced path, which would spoil the delicate beauty of Derwent Water for ever. I believe this is a thoroughly bad idea, and I find it depressing that the NPA should even consider it.

Am I really alone in thinking this trail sounds like it could be a great idea? A low level trail, starting from a hub location like Keswick could be a great way of getting more people out and experiencing the outdoors. It could help inspire children. Provide an option for the less able. Maybe there could be clashes that need Sandford to intervene (for example if it passed a sensitive habitat site). But writing it off as something the Park Authority shouldn’t even contemplate is simply incorrect. The idea is perfectly in line with their statutory duties.

Activities still working towards better access

After well over 100 years of campaigning effort, in the early 2000s walkers, climbers and others final got (something close to) the access rights they had always believed was a natural right.*** Its often very overlooked that other activities are still campaigning for recognition of their rights to access the outdoors. As a canoeist I’ve posted about this a lot. And when I worked in the Access & Enviroment team (dual purposes…!) at British Canoeing I often heard the Sandford Principle quoted as a reason for keeping canoeists away from anywhere wet. Again, the crunch is that the allegations were never carefully tested and evidenced examples of the harm canoeing would do. There was rarely any suggestion of working with canoeing to mitigate any impact. Instead Sandford was used as an easy way of winning a debate – “you can’t let canoeists on River X because it might have some effect on the environment, so Sandford says you must block it”. (This letter from National Parks Wales to one of the Welsh consultations give a strong rebuttal on this, and touches on several other of the issues raised in this post.)

It very often seems that Sandford is almost a front for some of the concerns raised, which often have strong whiffs of snobbery. These are schemes which might let the riff-raff in. There’s already access, if only you could do it properly, like me. There’s no need for any new methods of engaging and encouraging more people to come and appreciate our wild areas. These are exactly the arguments that will alienate people – and when people can’t share something, they care less about it. We need to do the exact opposite.

Access advocates support Sandford

The recent consultation in Wales proposed a great deal of change for the outdoors and the rural environment, proposing improving access rights. It also proposed creating a third legal purpose for National Parks to promote economic development. While strongly advocating for the access changes that the consultation was proposing, outdoor organisations equally strongly campaigned against these changes – see these articles from the BMC and Open Spaces Society especially.

Recreational users of the outdoors generally do so because of a love for the environments they visit. Often this passion was created through being outdoors in the first place. We all recognise the need for our activities to avoid harm. As a canoeist, a walker and a cyclist I regularly make careful decisions about where and when to go for exactly these reasons.

The Sandford Principle, when used correctly, is a great way of ensuring strong promotion of both conservation and access together, working to create a stronger, more sustainable future for all our protected landscapes. As Lord Greenway stated in a House of Lords debate: “As we all know, the “Sandford principle” has been accepted as a reasonable approach to the management of national parks and equivalent areas. It has been generally accepted by the recreational interests since it becomes relevant only when there is an acute conflict.” It is intended to act as, “a principle of last resort that only applies in cases of irreconcilable conflict when an integrated approach to management has failed” (source).

Personally, my issue isn’t at all with careful consideration of Sandford as part of the planning and development of any new initiative within National Parks. My issue is with the tendency to use Sandford to campaign against any activity before the full facts are known and before the change to engage fully to see if and how any specific initiative might go ahead.

There is space for all of us to get out and enjoy the outdoors our own way. In fact, all the better if we do – it’ll help spread the load. Misrepresenting issues like the Sandford Principle will only serve to drive a wedge between people, making them defensive of their own interests and hostile to those of others. And now, more than ever, the environment needs us all pulling in the same direction.

—–

* I say that purpose is fairly clear, but can cause some pretty big clashes – see, for example, the debate on hill farming vs rewilding or on driven grouse shooting vs, well, pretty much everyone else.

** The law doesn’t use the word irrevocable. But this is what Sandford is interpreted as, and you see it time and time again in guidance. Official guidance issue by DEFRA stated: “The statutory duties […] state that, “in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land” in these areas, relevant authorities “shall have regard” to their purposes [note: no specification of priority]. In National Parks, if it appears there is an irreconcilable conflict between the Park’s two purposes then greater weight should be attached to the conservation purpose (the “Sandford principle”).  Lets labour the point – you can also see this here  and here and here  and here and here and here and here and here and here.

*** This is a slight aside, but I believe Public Rights (like Public Footpaths, Bridleways, Access Land) trump the legislation that enshrined the Sandford Principle. You cannot use the Sandford Principle to close a Public Footpath for example, however strong your case. I’m not saying I agree that should be the case, just that I think it is the case.

Wye we need canoe rights recognised!

This post is a follow up to a post from a few weeks ago which looked at the difficulties canoeists face in getting their rights to navigate our rivers recognised. As much as anything it’s a plug for an excellent new research document looking at the Upper Wye produced by the dedicated folk at River Access For All, with much support from the Waters of Wales campaign.

The River Wye is recognised as holding public navigation rights below Hay on Wye. In 2002 the Environment Agency won a bizarre tussle to control the river as the navigation authority, after a group of business folk tried to resurrect a long slumbering company which owned the right to control the river’s traffic.

Above Hay however, the paddler’s right to navigate is much more contested. It’s another case similar to the River Trent at Kelham – a huge amount of clear evidence that there are public rights, but no way of having this officially recognised.

Officialdom has always looked the other way regarding the Upper Wye. Even the 2002 Wye Navigation Order attempts to wring its hands on the issue, stating that all of its provisions do not affect the existence or lack of existence of rights above Hay. A legislative boot into the long grass. The EA continues this noble tradition by using a variety of terms to describe the Upper Wye, currently stating (after pressure to more accurately reflect the true picture from British Canoeing and others*) “there is no confirmed legal right of navigation upstream of Hay Bridge“.

rafahayThe effect of this distancing from the issue by statutory bodies is to cement a status quo where canoeing is seen to be ‘not legal’. The knock on effect of this is to empower landowners and anglers to hassle canoeists on the river by stating ‘you have no rights here’. One landowner has recently decided to install charges for anyone wishing to navigate along ‘his’ river (I won’t legitimise that nonsense with a link.)

So, have a read of this excellent paper from RAFA. As per my last post regarding the River Trent, I’d be interested in any views on this – can anyone really reasonably contend there isn’t, on the balance of probabilities, a right for the public to navigate this river. I’d be even more interested to hear if anyone has any actual counter-evidence to this document. Evidence that goes beyond simply, WE LOUDLY DISAGREE, at any rate…

* The EA’s old (but still on their website) guide to canoeing the Wye talks of the Upper Wye being ‘non-navigation’ and of there being “no established public right of navigation“.

poshpicnic.JPGAs a slight aside, and to show how daft debates on public access can get, I once had a weeks long debate with the EA regarding the definition of a ‘picnic’ and how one may affect the public’s right to access the banks (below Hay). Never was the phrase ‘one sandwich short of…’ so apt! The wording on their website still doesn’t reflect (yet) the outcome of the picnicgate discussions!

River Trent at Kelham

Despite periodically straying into the news, the access issues facing paddlers on our rivers doesn’t have a huge profile. Mostly the issue goes under the public’s radar, most of who are surprised to hear our rivers could be considered private. At the national level the disagreement concerns the existent of a general historic – but, importantly, un-rescinded – right to navigate our rivers. It’s all too long winded for this post to cover, but essentially paddlers and anglers/landowners are at deadlock over interpretations of centuries old common law (for reference: the paddlers are right, obviously!).

But where there is some agreement, at least on the face of it, between different parties is regarding how a Pubic Right of Navigation (PRN) can be created at a local level on specific stretches of river.

Both the Country Landowners Association (CLA) and the Angling Trust have issued policies or opinion relating to river access that confirm the view that a PRN will be created on a stretch of river by either:

  • Statute;
  • Long-user; or
  • Landowner grant

For Rights of Way on land (public footpaths, bridleways etc) a Definitive Map exists to catalogue recognised routes. If a route isn’t on the map but people believe it should be there exists a clear mechanism for people to apply for it to be added. The process (especially the time councils take) isn’t perfect, but it works.

Nothing similar exists to enable claims for a PRN to be assessed and confirmed. The frustrating result for canoeists is that even where public rights demonstrably exist organisations like the CLA and Angling Trust will (with extreme hypocrisy considering their public position regarding how such rights can be established) actively oppose the existence. In many cases not only will they oppose any claim for a PRN but they will also send out menacing legal letters to anyone claiming such rights exist or who dare use the river.

Trent at Kelham

kelhamtrent

One example of a river where a clear PRN exists is the River Trent passing by the village of Kelham. The current river navigation instead uses the branch running through Newark, and is (presumably begrudgingly!) accepted as a PRN. However, the branch running past Kelham was once the main navigation route of the Trent, used for centuries as a public navigation.

Despite the history of the river here being a PRN, the anglers who rent or own the fishing rights vehemently oppose paddling, claiming any use of the stretch for navigation is trespass. There have been reports of paddlers being threatened and abused by the anglers (who no doubt would say the same of canoeists – one of the perverse impacts of the debate is to make enemies of two groups which in other countries act in cooperation for the environment).

kelhamtrent2

It’s a real shame as the route makes a great 10 mile round trip when the current managed channel is used as a return route. The picture of the river here (from Flickr) shows the river running past Kelham – we aren’t talking about a narrow stretch of river where fair sharing of the space isn’t possible. Both recreations should be more than capable of working with each other on the Trent here.

The attached document shows the evidence for a PRN on the Kelham branch, representing about as clear a claim for a common law PRN on historic use as you can imagine. I’d be really interested in any extra – or opposing – evidence.

Claim and counter-claim

The issue facing paddlers is that, despite how clear this evidence is, there is no route to have this PRN officially recognised. This does not mean the route is not a legal PRN. A court judgment or Definitive Map Modification Order don’t create a Right of Way, they only recognise it.

So the canoeist has no recourse at all – there is no route for them to take to clear the matter up.

Locked in limbo

The fall out from this results the national problem being reflected on hundred of rivers locally: the de-facto acceptance of no access rights for canoeists on rivers.

Many canoeists will now simply carry on paddling, hoping to ignore the often hostile challenge they receive from the banks. But many more are put off from accessing rivers.

Organisations like local councils, wildlife organisations, and even friendlier landowners are also put off from promoting the many benefits of canoeing on these stretches. No new facilities like decent portage or access can be put in. No advice can be given to paddlers on the wildlife or dangers of the stretch. All because any efforts to do any of this will receive a quasi-legal threat from the local anglers, meaning putting money into a project a risk they can’t take.

All of which is of course the result those opposed want.

What can be done?

When you consider that only 4% of England’s rivers hold uncontested recreational navigation rights (and almost every mile of the 4% is managed, modified and canalised river), you can see the extent of the problem.

So, what are the solutions?

  1. Government should take more note of the nature of the access issue nationally – in particular the strong evidence for a general PRN. Gaining a full national solution to this issue, with the rights and responsibilities of canoeists taken seriously would be the single biggest step to positive change.
  2. Examine the potential for claims of PRN to be assessed. For those rivers where there is a claim for a local PRN in addition to the national General PRN there needs to be a simpler way of resolving the dispute. This will also enable the Government to see the huge extent of this issue on rivers across England – making a proper national resolution more likely.

If you are a canoeist, get engaged with the campaigns run by British Canoeing, Waters of Wales and RAFA – and let your MP know you are too!

Share and share alike

Periodically items appear in the news regarding the ongoing debate between canoeing and angling regarding access to our rivers. I always take interest in reading them, so was excited to see a feature in The Times at the weekend (Anglers Fear Invasion – you need to sign up for a basic free account to read it if you don’t subscribe).

Now, full disclosure, part of my reason for taking such an interest in the Angling Trust’s periodic attacks on canoeing has been the fact that for three years I was an Access Officer at British Canoeing. After relocating to the edge of gorgeous Nidderdale last year I had to give up the position (with much regret as I loved the subject, the job and the people I worked with). So I was even more interested to see this latest article, as it is in response to a job advert for my replacement.

Now. There’s often a lot to digest and cut through with these stories. To a reader unaware of the history of the debate regarding access to our rivers the Angling Trust’s points may well read very valid. But dig beneath the surface and you always find some odd, misleading and spurious statements (I’ve covered the licence issue before as just one example). Not least of these charges is the Angling Trust’s odd claim ‘that the canoeists are refusing to agree to compromise measures such as closed seasons when fish are spawning […] we have tried to come to agreement but they will only accept an agreement that will allow you to go 365 days a year’.

This is odd because in most cases the ONLY times of year many angling clubs, backed by the Angling Trust, will even consider for any kind of agreement are the very close seasons when the fish are spawning (see this EA guidance for the South West for example).

It’s also odd because the research on the impact of canoeing on fish stocks demonstrates that canoeing poses a very low risk to fish spawning grounds. Canoes simply float above gravels, especially during the higher winter waters. Despite this low risk British Canoeing goes to considerable effort to engage with the EA and others to ensure canoeists are both informed of local spawning grounds. One of the few successful Access Arrangements (AAs) in England is on the River Greta in Cumbria, where paddlers are informed about suitable water heights during spawning seasons, and directed to alternative access points if spawning beds are identified. This AA is actively supported by local canoeists. Why? Because they feel engaged, treated fairly and are informed effectively.

The biggest myth is that British Canoeing – and important to add that canoeists in general – are not open to working with landowners, anglers and any other stakeholders on our rivers. What paddlers do object to is draconian and overly restrictive AAs, imposed on them, without fair, open and positive consultation. They wish to be treated fairly on our rivers, so that we can all enjoy – and protect – this natural resource.

I believe British Canoeing has a very fair and access policy (I mean, I would really, as I helped develop it). This defines an approach to developing partnerships on our rivers based on mutual respect, trust and cooperation by and for all (there’s no mention of 365 days a year, funnily enough). You can judge for yourself if it’s fair by downloading the full policy from their website.

The Angling Trust currently have a great campaign running looking at cleaning up litter from our water environment. Their Take Five campaign is exactly the sort of project a lot of canoeists would love to join forces on. There are many other ways the two sports could link up to strengthen and protect out rivers, building on what both are currently doing separately. Issues like Check/Clean/Dry, ensuring healthy water quality, water abstraction and riparian development affect both sports. The Save Our Rivers campaign (previous Save the Conway, expanded after it’s great success) is an example of what joined up campaigning can achieve. Started by kayakers, but engaging anglers and promoting issues that affect all.

It’s a shame that progress that progress can’t be made at a national level on similar campaigns. When all feel welcomed to enjoy our waters fairly and equitably real progress can be made on more positive relationships between people who, at the end of the day, all have a passion for our rivers.

(If you want a bit of a visual intro to the river access debate have a look at this One Show clip. If it doesn’t start at the right point click to 2m40s!)

Brexit means…[insert plan here]

We may have already accepted that many of the Leave side’s, erm, lets say, ‘aspirations’ regarding post-Brexit Britain were, charitably, bluster. However, this doesn’t seem to be stopping a whole plethora of organisations from getting early letters-to-Santa into the post regarding the future of the country. In no field is this more clear than in the realm of farming subsidies – even before the referendum this was recognised as an emotive subject on all sides of the debate, with no-one happen with the current wasteful system.

The National Trust kicked off the calls for change post-Brexit in August. I covered this in a previous blog post, asking them not to forget about the role for improved countryside access. Since then there have a range of alternative ideas for reforming subsidies. These ideas, to no-one’s surprise, treat farming as the ultimate guinea-pig, a convenient test-bed for often highly ideological economic, social and political pet theories. I’m not sure, as an example, many of the farmers who voted for Brexit would be hugely impressed with Ryan Bourne of the IEA’s (a fundamentalist Free Market think-tank) proposal to simply cut all subsidies and throw farming to full global competitive forces (or, in simple terms, destroy UK farming).

In addition to Bourne’s Free Market views there have been  proposals to protect smaller farms from CPRE; the predictable counter-arguments from the NFU and Country Landowner’s Association (CLA) and a new collaboration (of RSPB, WWF, Wildlife Trusts and National Trust) building on National Trust’s initial ideas with a new plan for a Green Brexit*. The partners have produced a glossy leaflet, outlining a new five point plan titled ‘A New Policy For Our Countryside‘.

Of course, my own blog on this issue was also an attempt to throw my own prime passion, countryside access, into the mix. And thankfully, as always, The Open Spaces Society have been making just that argument to government too. Their call is for the subsidy system to benefit access to the countryside, through more effective maintenance of current routes, and increased dedication of both new footpaths and Access Land. All of which is great (as usual OSS are leading from the front on this), but doesn’t really go far enough for those of us looking at a severe lack of access for our boats and bike as well as our boots.

Brexit means… working together

 

As already mentioned, most of the calls for change represent very narrow views, aligned closely (soley) to the organistion involved’s own work and interests. I listed some ideas for access in the last blog and I have a tonne more, But this post isn’t about simply throwing more ideas in the mix, but about encouraging organisations and campaigners to work together for change. And not just with others who are tightly aligned (as per the Green Brexit Coalition), but with others too.

If we want government to listen to any of us, we need to speak with more than just one voice. In 2013 our forests were threatened with a massive sell-off. In response the government recieved a loud, resounding chorus of criticism with just one message – over our dead bodies. I’ve no doubt that the government’s change of heart was driven, at least in part, by the huge diversity of voices telling them the sell-off was unacceptable.

Outdoor recreation, environmentalism and heritage often conflict with each other. This is senseless, and only serves to weaken each message. I’d love to see a Venn Diagram of people interested in the environment and involved in outdoor recreation** – I’ll bet you’ll see something looking more like an eclipse than two separate circles! So why do we not all work together more? Of course there are issues where interest may differ – but these are all surmountable through a cooperative approach and, even if not, still more binds us together.

So my message to all those who love our countryside – whether on foot during a challenge walk, with a passion for creating new habitats, or for protecting our rural heritage (or, as many of us will be, all three) to work together. It’s great that RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and National Trust are working together – but bring Ramblers, OSS and others with you! Together we’ll build a case government can’t ignore!

Brexit means… engaging

Leading on from this call for a coalition for the countryside is another point – both obvious and more tricky. We must also bring farmers with us too. Here I do think there is in many ways a disconnect between the different communities involved in protecting our countryside. I certainly don’t feel I know enough about farming. But we must seek to engage and understand the farming community if we are to develop a future for the countryside which genuinely does increase wildlife protection, rural heritage and access to the great outdoors. Imagine how strong our case will be if it represents not only a united from from heritage, conservation and access campaigners – but also has farmers championing our cause too!


* Good news for anyone who had that in their Brexit bingo. I got stuck with Sloppy-Brexit.

** This research document doesn’t have any Venn Diagrams, but does show that outdoor recreation and environmentalism come from very similar roots, and are very inter-twined – so why do we then go on to self-identify ourselves as one or the other?

National Trust – Don’t Forget About Access!

They say a week is a long time in politics. And though the recent upheaval the pre-June 23rd UK seems almost a forgotten and distant era though only a month ago. As Brexit becomes ever more the political reality, more and more organisations, like the National Trust, who spoke out in favour of a Remain vote begin to switch focus to attempts to steer Brexit in a positive direction. This is the thinking behind National Trust’s new push to radically renew the system of farming subsidies in the UK.

The trust have released a six point plan for subsidies, shifting away away from production and acreage-based grants to refocus on protecting, restoring and enhancing the natural environment.

The six points are summarised here, but are given in more detail on the National Trust’s Future of Our Farming news article:

  1. Public money must only pay for public goods.
  2. It should be unacceptable to harm nature but easy to help it.
  3. Nature should be abundant everywhere.
  4. We need to drive better outcomes for nature, thinking long-term and on a large scale.
  5. Farmers that deliver the most public benefit, should get the most.
  6. We must invest in science, new technology and new markets that help nature.

I fully agree with each of these points. It’s great to see one of our biggest national conservation charities (and also one of our biggest farmers) making such a bold intervention in this debate.

However…!

I do feel National Trust have missed a very important Point Seven from their list of six:

Facilitating improved access to the countryside for the British public.

 Public funds should be used to facilitate public access

While great strides have been made in opening access to our uplands, moorlands and other ‘open countryside’ to outdoor recreation in recent decades, people are still broadly excluded from a great deal of our lowlands and other areas subject to farming. These area, and the farmers and landowners who manage them, receive a huge amount in subsidies – around £2.5-3 billion in Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) payments alone. This money comes from the public in the form of taxation – yet the public is excluded from the vast majority of farmland. Attempts to increase public access are heavily resisted by farmers and their representatives. This can be witnessed in the negative response from NFU Cymru to the Welsh Assembly Government’s Green Paper on countryside access.

Of course, a great many farmers and landowners do an awful lot to help walkers and others in the countryside. And many involved in outdoor recreation need to change their attitudes, especially with keeping dogs on leads and respecting property by doing no damage. But all in all farm land presents a potentially incredibly valuable, but under-utilised recreational resource. And one we are all paying to keep going.

DSCF4427.jpgEven the Public Footpaths that do exist in farm land are often treated with contempt by farmers. On a recent walk near Wirksworth, on the edge of the Peak District, a Public Footpath through a farmyard had been completely blocked with taped fencing and locked gates across the legal Right of Way. Being so far from an alternative route I had no choice but to find a way of scrambling over the barriers, and hoping not to meet what was likely to be a hostile farmer. At another point (within a few miles) I came across the pictured sign on a gate – no problem I thought, I have no intention of leaving the path. The only marvernsfarm.jpgtrouble was the path went straight across the middle of the field and hadn’t been maintained. Crops were growing on it, so that the path was invisible. So I had the landowner was making it very clear to me I must stay on the path, while giving me no option but to guess where it was and walk straight through their crop!

The fields in the second picture are by the Malverns, leading up to one of the railway stations walkers can use to access this great range of hills. But the Rights of Way crossing it have been ploughed up, leaving it unclear where a walker should go to either stay on the correct path or even use a route which the farmer might prefer. So the walker is left in the uncomfortable position of just having to strike out across a field and hoping for the best.

Positive Benefits

Although the benefits to outdoor recreation are clear (and all that entails for both physical and mental wellbeing), there are other benefits to increased access to our countryside, and ones that should benefit farmers too.

“No one will protect what they don’t care about; and no one will care about what they have never experienced.” Sir David Attenborough

I love this quote. It sums up so much about what I believe is great about getting people into the countryside. The charge is often made that people from outside the farming/conservation/upland/rural (delete as applicable) communities don’t understand them, leading to conflict, misunderstand and failed policies. Well, how can people be expected to understand something they are actively excluded from? Unless we stand helping people enjoy, responsibly, their countryside, to see it as theirs to protect, how are we to spread the vital messages we to about the issues such areas face?

With such an adversarial situation between outdoor advocates and the farming sector both sides can come across as intransigent. Organisations like Ramblers and Open Spaces Society get criticised for a ‘militant’ approach to the policing of Public Footpaths, especially in opposing changes to the direction of paths. Again – when such paths present one of the few legal ways to access much of our countryside, when our rights to use these was so hard fought for, and when (as described above) they are still so often abused by some (but nowhere near all) landowners, how can we expect otherwise. By having a more liberal approach to  accessing the countryside (see my ideas below), maybe all can work more positively together in the future, with changes being made through cooperative partnerships, rather than through often hostile relationships.

What Access?

These are just my initial thoughts on the ways in which our countryside could be opened up more effectively to outdoor recreation through conditionality in subsidies (or even, blue sky thinking alert, because it’s just a good idea!). Importantly, I don’t believe any of these ideas need have any detrimental effect on farmers. They should, at worst be neutral in impact, and at best create additional opportunities for landowners (e.g. chargeable facilities, cafes etc) should they wish to take advantage.

If anyone has any ideas to contribute to this, please let me know – it would be great to collate them!

Maintenance of footpaths – ensuring and Rights of Way running through land are maintained, open, and welcoming should be a clear minimum condition. This is already a legal responsibility landowners have – so it should be happening anyway. There should be a zero tolerance approach to handing over public funds to any landowner not fulfilling such responsibilities.

Increasing opportunities for access on foot – where possible audits of the local area should be conducted to identify gaps in local provision. For example local beauty spots which are difficult to access; under-resourced activities (e.g. a lack of Bridleways for horse riders or cyclists); or areas with a low density of either Rights of Way or Access Land. Where gaps are identifies landowners should be encouraged to work with other stakeholders to set up new routes, ideally as Rights of Way, but potentially as Permissive routes.

Access on/along rivers / lakes – only 4% of rivers in England and Wales hold a IMG_20160508_152818551b.jpgRight of Navigation which is recognised (or unopposed) by all parties. This has a severe impact on water sports, especially canoeing. In return for public fund
to maintain land, landowners should be obliged to allow canoes to pass along their waterways. Although this doesn’t answer the deeply entrenched issue of whether permission is needed or whether a legal right already exists (see, for example, River Access For All) it would at least allow paddlers to canoe along a huge amount of water with reduced conflict with other groups.

Support access to specific environments for outdoor recreation – these could range from rocks and crags for climbing, or the chance for newer sports like paragliding, abseiling etc to be able to use land for their recreational use.

Kinder 1932 – Separating the Myth

The Kinder Mass Trespass. It’s the most well known of all the protests in the rambling/outdoor movement – it’s possibly the ONLY well known aspect of the movement full stop. And therein lies the rub. As its centenary begins to approach (the event was 84 years ago now, in 1932), it’s status becomes ever more legendary. But are we celebrating the reality of the event, or a myth? The tweet quoted above, from the Peak District’s Chief Executive (who has been doing a great job in representing and promoting the Peak District), got me thinking about the debates about the event’s place in rambling history.

mass trespass - libraryemsSo first, some of the contentions any rambler will hear…

  • The Kinder Mass Trespass was the first major protest in the rambling movement – MYTH! Many protests and trespasses had taken place in the 50 years before Kinder (1).
  • The Kinder Mass Trespass was the largest major protest in the rambling movement – MYTH! Some protests, especially those in the North-West, attracted tens-of-thousands of protesters – and got quicker results too (2).
  • The protest helped create or protect Public footpaths for us all to enjoy – MYTH! Public footpaths were already well-protected in law – the Kinder Mass Trespass was concerned with the Right to Roam over open countryside away from the footpaths.
  • The protest helped create our National ParksMYTH!
  • The protest was a major step on the journey towards securing the Right to Roam? MTYH? Ah, well, here’s where it gets interesting!

The Kinder Mass Trespass is now well established in the public’s eye as THE major event in the rambling movement’s long fight to secure a Right to Roam (a fight that still isn’t fully won). Evidence of this can be seen even in information available on the Ramblers website repeating many of the myths above (read on to see why this is especially ironic!). However, once you dig deeper there is a lot more controversy surrounding the protest’s actual role in helping secure greater access.

The Case For

While the Kinder Mass Trespass was a long way from being the first or biggest such event, it probably can be credited with being the first to bring the issue of countryside access to a wider audience. Previous events had either been galvanising to local communities or to those campaigning for increased countryside access. Kinder changed that. This was arguably not through the effects of the trespass itself but through the official reaction to it, especially the harsh jail sentences handed out to the people involved.

kinder trespass - matt bowdenThe draconian punishments given to the ring leaders pushed countryside access into the national eye, far beyond its usual reach, helping creating a surge in interest. Although protests rallies had already been held at Winnat’s Pass (close to Kinder) for many years, the interest generated by the court cases saw crowds surge to over 10,000 in 1932. Many of the new attendees were reacting to what was seen as an example of a ruling class determined to stamp out any claim to the countryside by those in the industrial towns and cities.

Over the years the legend of the Kinder Mass Trespass grew, becoming the poster child for new generations of ramblers, angry with a lack of progress in achieving the aim of a Right to Roam. This is arguably the protest’s lasting legacy, providing a ‘foundation myth’ to spur on new protest movements throughout the 1900s. Although many of these movements never forgot the role of other protests, or the role of other organisations, in the access movement, the Kinder Mass Trespass was always the go-to event to help the public understand the context of their actions, especially in press reports.

The Case Against

tomstephensonAt the time of the protest almost all the leading access campaigners of the day were against it. The Rambers Association, the Open Spaces Society, and leading campaigners such as Tom Stephenson all opposed the protest. Many other stalwarts of the rambling establishment were also critical, claiming the after-effects the protest would set the movement back by decades. Many people involved in the access movement had been attempting to engage with government and landowners to change the laws regarding access to open countryside, and were fearful that the protest would set this back. Some of the criticisms bordered on sour grapes, criticising the protest for not reaching the actual summit of Kinder for example. The leaders of the trespass were also criticised for being agitators, rather than ‘true believers’ in the countryside access cause, seeing it a convenient excuse to engage in a bit of a ruckus with those in authority.

These arguments against have created a powerful counter-argument to the more commonly understood narrative of the primacy of the Kinder trespass’ role in opening up the countryside.

Protest vs Dialogue

The disagreements over the impact and legacy of the Kinder Mass Trespass point to a wider debate regarding the best method of achieving change: a process of dialogue and engagement with authority, or one of actively rebelling against that authority. Tom Stephenson is the epitome of the dialogue approach. Over decades he worked tirelessly to campaign for the political change needed to open up the countryside. He led organisations like the Ramblers Association, and worked as a civil servant, drawing up plans for the Acts pennine way sign - Andrew bowdenof Parliament needed to turn the outdoor access movement’s aims into reality. Many of the things we take for granted in our countryside now come as a direct result of Tom Stephenson’s (and many other’s) work – in particular National Trails and our National Parks (3), but he was also a key player in the groundwork for defining the Access Land that was finally approved through Parliament in the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000, years after his passing. All involved in outdoor recreation owe Tom Stephenson a debt.

However, it’s also true to say that protest also plays an active role in delivering change, one that is often under-recognised. For a start, as with the Kinder protest, it brings issues to a much wider audience than they might otherwise achieve. A mass trespass event will always be a greater hook for the press to turn into column inches than the efforts of a civil servant sitting in Westminster defining terms like ‘open countryside’, however vital their work was (and is). Protest can have a galvanising effect, making clear the injustice, and helping promote the cause outside of the narrow interest-groups who initially raise any specific issue. Between the two approaches there needs to be better recognition of the ways each has helped push forwards countryside access, and fewer attempts to play down the achievements of others.

It’s a touch ironic that many of the official organisations that decried the Kinder Mass Trespass originally are now some of the biggest cheerleaders for its recognition – as witnessed by the tweet quoted at the start of this blog. Many in the Open Spaces Society now admit they were ‘on the wrong side’ in relation to the event, National Trust have a ‘Trespass Trail’ available for download. The Ramblers, led by Tom Stephenson for many years, promotes the efforts to preserve the story of the trespass, crediting its role in creating the right to roam. Even the current Duke of Devonshire, whose moorlands the Kinder protestors were fighting to open, admitted at the 2002 anniversary rally to remember the Kinder trespass that his family were on the wrong side of history! A cynic might suggest this is, at least partly, a symptom of the commoditisation of history – the Kinder Mass Trespass sells! But it’s also a reflect that, after time passes it’s easier to see that the efforts of both protestor and peace-maker were both instrumental in the long battle for access to our countryside – a battle not yet fully won!

For my part, as much as I thank those in the trespass for the role they played in securing greater access, I hope people like Tom Stephenson aren’t forgotten.

Don’t forget about the birds?

hen harrier - rob zweersAlmost as a post-script to this blog, there is a current issue that shows the ‘protest vs dialogue’ debate is not only still live – but also still relevant to many of the concerns of the Kinder trespass: protecting/accessing our countryside, the actions of landowners and the Peak District landscape. A recent blog post from the ex-Peak District Chief Executive Jim Dixon picks up on the issues surrounding the campaign for greater protection for the Hen Harrier. The article hands out a severe admonishing to the wildlife campaigner Chris Packham for committing the crime of becoming too passionate about the plight of the Hen Harrier. Chris apparently allowed his passion to spill over into counter-productive anger. Instead of Chris attending events to raise awareness of the issue, it is proposed he simply needs to get out onto the moors and start talk to game keepers – that’s the way progress lies. Through cooperation, communication.

Except, in many instances such an approach doesn’t work. Especially when it comes to Hen Harriers. For a few years campaigners have bemoaned the RSPB for precisely the opposite – for relying too much on cooperation and dialogue by taking part in the Government’s Hen Harrier Action Plan (the Hawk and Owl Trust have also been similarly criticised). However, after a sincere and committed attempt to work with this strategy, RSPB were left with no choice to pull out. You read more about why on Martin Harper’s blog post.

When the sheer determination of some stakeholders to resist change leads to organisations like as RSPB finding themselves unable to continue a dialogue the debate must be seen to be in a bad place. Such situations only serve to push ever larger groups to a more extreme, protest-based angle, as they see no other routes for meaning full progress. I hope, for the Hen Harrier’s benefit, some of the other key players, like the National Parks, DEFRA and others can see this and work positively. Rather than resorting to again distorting the debate by criticising campaigners who are starting to feel like all hope for a positive, consensus-based solution can work. With the Hen Harrier facing such a bleak future this is certainly this is an issue for anyone with a passion for our natural heritage to get involved in – regardless of whether your method of choice is protest or dialogue!

Footnotes / References

 (1) & (2) As an example the Winter Hill Mass Trespass was earlier (1896), bigger (well over 10,000 people) and more successful than the Kinder trespass (at least in the short term)

(3) This is why my own hackles are raised by some of the mythology surrounding the Kinder Mass Trespass – not because I don’t recognise its role, but because I want to see the role of people like Tom Stephenson given more credit!

Picture references: Kinder Trespass plaque via libraryems on Flickr; Kinder Waymarker via Andrew Bowden on Flickr; Tom Stehenson via Tricouni Club; Pennine Way fingerbord via Andrew Bowden on Flickr; Hen Harrier via Rob Zweers on Flickr.

 Some more reading on the Kinder Mass Trespass

Make up your own mind on the 1932 Kinder Mass Trespass with some of these sources!

Why don’t you pay?

Of the many threads to the debate between canoeists and anglers, one of the most common is the suggestion that anglers pay, while canoeists do not. “Why should canoeing be allowed on rivers when you won’t pay your way?” After all, anglers pay for a rod licence from the Environment Agency, and many (but by no means all) stretches of river have their angling rights bought or rented by fishing clubs – with the most choice locations fetching £1000s a year. So at first it seems like a reasonable question to ask.

But let’s have a look at the charge in more detail.

We pay a licence – why don’t you?

Let’s start with the Rod Licence – as it’s the only directly comparable aspect of what ‘canoeists pay’ vs what ‘anglers pay’. It is a legal requirement for all anglers to hold a rod licence to be able to fish – and an adult annual licence starts at £27 (a salmon licence however is a lot more at £72). So, if an angler was to stick to spots across the country where fishing is free (such as on Trent Embankment in Nottingham), £27 would be all they need to pay. Not many anglers realise that canoeists also pay a licence on the managed waterway network (canals and canalised rivers). The fees vary from one navigation authority to another, but as examples an annual licence for all the Canal & River Trust’s waterways costs £45, while it’s £35 for a Thames-only licence from the Environment Agency. Canoeists can get access to almost all managed waterways as British Canoeing members, which costs £45 a year. So, in terms of the actual licence, it is actually cheaper, and potentially covering a lot more of the country, to hold an angling licence than it is a canoeing licence.

Of course on many rivers there is no Navigation Authority and so no licence requirement for canoeists (although usually highly diputed Rights of Navigation). However, on these rivers the canoeist also gets nothing back (the River Wye being the notable exception to this rule, but for specific reasons). No put-in points or portages are provided. The river is not maintained for use (with blockages such as trees removed for example). Compare this with the money the Environment Agency reinvests into angling through the provision of it’s fishery services and it’s clear anglers are getting very specific benefits for their licence fees.

So, at its basic level:

  • Cost of canoeing per year, where a licence is required, nationally – £45
  • Cost of fishing per year, where a licence is required, nationally – £27

Ah – but many anglers pay large sums of money in club fees to access some waterways – canoeists don’t give the landowner anything!

Well, maybe, in many cases. However, club fees are dictated by the level of prestige for certain angling locations or clubs. And the actually can be very cheap – for example the Waterways Explorer scheme from Canal & River Trust only costs £20 a year, but gives access to a large network of angling locations across England. Added to the licence fee this still only comes to £47 a year – only £2 more than canoeists pay.

But what services are canoeists actually requiring from landowners for this? Nothing, essentially. They simply float on past. Anglers and their clubs pay anything from relatively small sums for some stretches of river up to eye-watering sums for others. However, in return for this the anglers are getting a variety of services that canoeists simply don’t get, need or want. This includes:

  • The right to drive onto, park, and occupy on private land to fish;
  • The ability to install angling pegs – platforms, steps and other infrastructure on private land;
  • Potentially installing new paths and drives to access remote pegs;
  • The exclusive right to fish on specific stretches of river/lakes.

Where canoeists do need to use land, for example at the points where they park and launch, they do also usually pay. This can be in the form of car parking fees, or launching fees for put-in points on private land. But comparing an activity which progresses down the river with one that operates at fixed points along it is not a fair comparison. Its akin to shooting participants challenging walkers for not paying to access Public Footpaths (yes, I know!).

This isn’t to accept that angling clubs and their members do a great amount to help look after their landlord’s land – and also contribute a great deal to maintaining the river environment too. However, it does show that drawing comparisons between the two sports is at best flawed, and in some cases sees canoeists actually paying more than anglers.

Right to Roll?

mamtorcyclist Paul Stephenson

British Cycling have recently launched their new campaign, asking for changes to footpath legislation to allow cycles, especially mountain bikes, to access more footpaths. You can read more about the campaign, including letters to the British and Welsh governments, on the campaign page on the British Cycling website.

Many cyclists will be pleased to see British Cycling taking a more active role in campaigning for mountain cycling, as it’s often criticised for neglecting this branch of the sport. Many areas of countryside, especially in the hills, could be great for mountain biking – but restrictive rules on who can access Public Footpaths mean they are effectively excluded from many areas.

RoW jealously protected

Our Rights of Way network, and the legislation and rules underpinning it, is jealously guarded by many organisations. And rightly so. Many groups (not least groups like Peak & Northern Footpaths Society, Open Spaces Society and what has become Ramblers) spent many years campaigning for these laws to be recognised and respected, with battles from the 1800s to restore and protect ancient footpaths. This battle continues to the present day, with landowners illegally closing footpaths. The legislation in place protects these routes – and so any suggestion of changes to these rules is treated with immense suspicion.

chesterfield canal - david morrisThere is also the issue of clashes between user groups on those routes that currently are shared between user groups. In the Peak District itself there have been issues between cyclists and other users on routes such as the Monsal Trail. The issue of cyclists on tow paths creates a huge amount of, often very acrimonious, debate on canal forums, with many calls for bikes to be banned. However, the fact cyclists are restricted in where they can go off road adds to these issues – increasing the routes available would help disperse people. It will therefore be interesting to see how many people react to British Cycling’s campaign.

There are other groups, both traditional users, those new and developing activities, and even ones that may at first not obviously rely on land-based Rights of Way. who would also benefit from either greater Shared Use of routes or opening of new works. Horse riders are subject to similar restrictions as cyclists, and would greatly benefit from a more liberal approach to developing routes for Shared Use. Sports like paragliding rely on footpaths to access areas to launch themselves – with ambiguity on the legality of this. Canoeists could use waterside footpaths to not only walk to the water, but also to launch onto rivers and lakes.

Part of the difficulty for many of these groups is ambiguity in terms such as ‘reasonable use’ (see CTC’s page on reasonable use), and ‘natural accompanyments’. This creates differences of opinion regarding, for example, whether carrying a kayak consitutes a natual accompanyment for a water-side footpath – or whether launching from the path is a reasonable use. With relatively little case law this is left to user groups, landowners, conservationsists and others to understand as best as they can – with as many different interpretations as there are users!

Though it was regarded as a giant leap forward at the time, and was the result of over a century of campaigning, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (known as CROW 2000) effectively left many of these questions unanswered (and that’s before touching upon the decision to actively exclude canoeing from the Act!). As time progresses and new outdoor sports grow these issues become more and more exposed. In Scotland, such issues were given much greater clarity, and access secured for more groups to a much wider range of the countryside with a stronger Access Code. Paradoxically this has actually resulted in a reduction of issues between user groups (especially regarding the often toxic debate between canoeists and anglers) as everyone understands not only their rights, but also their responsibilities.

It would be great to see England and Wales moving towards a more Scottish system of countryside access – and it’s good to see a positive initial response to British Cycling’s campaign from Ramblers. For an move to greater Shared Use (and the creation of new and updated rights and responsibilities), I believe the government should support the outdoor sector to develop an approach which combines as many of the following objectives as possible:

  • Ensures the continued protection of Rights of Way;
  • Works to increase Shared Use on routes which appropriate;
  • Engages landowners to give reassurance on liability and to promote Permissive Bridleways;
  • Develop a strong access code
  • Use groups such as Local Access Forums to continue developing partnership between users.
  • Allow flexibility in approach to fit to local circumstances (e.g. lack of routes for any user group, suitability of routes for Shared Use etc).

 

 

(Picture credit – Mam Tor Cyclist, Paul Stephenson on Flickr; Chesterfield Canal, David Morris on Flickr)