This is not a case of ‘get off my land’ – full access is damaging
THERE is currently a Private Members Bill tabled by Caroline Lucas MP, the “Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Amendment) Bill”.
This Bill aims to “amend the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW
Act 2000) to extend the right of public access to the countryside, including to woodlands, the Green Belt, waters and more grasslands; and for connected purposes”. The Bill had its first reading on June 20, 2022 and the second reading is due on October 28, 2022.
That is the formal bit. You’ll have to hear me out before you jump to the conclusion, I’m a grumpy farmer saying, “get off my land”. Far from it, but this bill is not the right way to improve access to the countryside.
Currently open access is allowed on mountain, moor, heath or down. Such land was mapped after the CROW Act 2000 became law and specifically excluded land that was improved or semiimproved – usually defined by having been cultivated or received lime, fertiliser or manure.
As you can imagine, there are grey areas as to what categories land falls into, that was argued about at the time.
Many of the fields which would be accessed have been semi-improved, they are extensively grazed and receive low levels of fertiliser and manure but are used for cattle, sheep and even horse grazing.
Including Green Belt will also bring in even more productive agricultural land.
Just opening up all woodland will have a big impact on nature, disturbance of nesting birds by dogs and trampling of flora.
The second clause expands the definition of access land to include any river, stream, lake, pond, or canal. Including riverbanks or land adjacent as necessary for the act of navigation or to bathe.
The use of any unpowered boats such as kayaks, sail boats, paddle boards would be allowed. Wildlife ponds and farm reservoirs could be included.
Riverbanks and land adjacent is not defined as to how wide a strip is included and neither how people are meant to move from one field to another without stiles or gates to access their favourite bathing spot or place to launch their canoe.
The third clause just appears to be casually added in, as it doesn’t even appear in the
opening introduction to the bill. The allowing of camping on any access land. We already see the damage that is caused by so called ‘wild camping,’ including litter, faeces, toilet paper, barbecues and open fires – leading to wildfires in the worst cases.
Let there be no misunderstanding I fully appreciate why people want and need to walk in the countryside for all the benefits it brings to their health and wellbeing.
In the 1930s it was to escape the muck and grime of the towns and cities with its heavy industry polluting the air. Today it is more about escaping the stresses and strains of computer-driven modern life.
However, the bill and campaign for more access ignores there are already 160,000 miles of footpaths and bridleways in the UK. For those that have access to a car, there is more than enough access land to enjoy.
The biggest issue is people who often don’t have access to a car or don’t feel confident about accessing the wider countryside and don’t have and probably can’t afford walking gear.
To encourage such people to get used to walking or using the outdoors as an activity, they need accessible footpaths, and in some cases tracks that are easy to access with children’s buggies and mobility scooters, on their doorsteps.