No right to roam.

[Paul_B]

I’m several decades too young (Not a phrase that I use often.) to have been part of the Mass Trespass but the access to Kinder Scout, The Pennine Way and ultimately the National Park were not the generous or willing gift of landowners. No one was prepared to meet half way.

They were won.

I honour those who cared, particularly those who went to prison to give me free access to the moors.

“So I’ll walk where I will over moorland and hill
And I’ll lie where the bracken it’s deep.
I belong to the mountains and the clear crystal fountains,
Where the grey rocks are jagged and steep.
I’ve seen the white hare in the gullies and the curlew fly [low] overhead,
And sooner than part from the mountain,
I think I would rather be dead.”

Ewan MacColl.

The only time that I saw the white hare in the groughs ( as I know the gullies ) they were moulting, half brown and half white and matched the brown peat and the grey gritstone in the bottoms perfectly. I’ve only ever seen curlew fly low.

Many of those 2,400 areas do not have any marked access at all. No one is going to gift us access - yes we can ask first, we can offer to make styles and gates but in many cases and ultimately it will take pressure from those of us who care.

Whenever the situation is too far in the favour of one side there's a problem. Back then it was in the favour of landowners. If you push things too far in favour of open access you might get things going the other way.

Land almost always has a use in the countryside that's not leisure. Leisure is the secondary use. When we go home the farmer quite often carries on working. There needs to be balance between competing uses. I wonder if we've reached it already.

 

[Broch]

My first thought was for the wildlife in the patches of non-open access land. It's likely to be much better off without too many people roaming through it.

It's also a bit sad to see some of the comments are about what someone can take rather that what's best for the land.

Agreed, my passion is wildlife and supporting habitats; it should come first and man's rights of intrusion second. We have callously cut and burned and drained this land for thousands of years; about time we nurtured and gave it priority.

 

[TLM]

There is an example of a different system that works in the nordic countries. Admittedly, the average population density is a LOT less than UK's. The rules are fairly clear on what is allowed what is not, generally they work.

 

[Chris]

Pity that.

It is really. I think those who selfishly hoard disproportionate resources might find themselves not on the winning side of these things.

Thankfully we reached a level of agreement where we are policed by consent and the owners of our vast swathes of land agreed that perhaps those who work and live the land should be entitled to enjoy these green pastures we call home, in exchange for the generators and protectors of these resources acting amicably. The alternative is far less pleasant all round.

 

[Broch]

It is really. I think those who selfishly hoard disproportionate resources might find themselves not on the winning side of these things.

Thankfully we reached a level of agreement where we are policed by consent and the owners of our vast swathes of land agreed that perhaps those who work and live the land should be entitled to enjoy these green pastures we call home, in exchange for the generators and protectors of these resources acting amicably. The alternative is far less pleasant all round.

We see these things slightly differently - and that's fine; open discussion is healthy. We are talking about a vast variety of what may be called "disproportionate resources". I have chosen to spend a good chunk of the pension that I invested in whilst working 60 to 80 hour weeks for 40 years, and generating income for other peoples mortgages, on a piece of land that I look after solely for conservation and biodiversity - other people buy houses in Spain, or expensive cars - I don't believe I have the right to go and stay for free in their holiday home or drive their cars around.

 

[Chris]

We see these things slightly differently - and that's fine; open discussion is healthy. We are talking about a vast variety of what may be called "disproportionate resources". I have chosen to spend a good chunk of the pension that I invested in whilst working 60 to 80 hour weeks for 40 years, and generating income for other peoples mortgages, on a piece of land that I look after solely for conservation and biodiversity - other people buy houses in Spain, or expensive cars - I don't believe I have the right to go and stay for free in their holiday home or drive their cars around.

I'm not aiming that at you, just to be clear. I think there's a big difference between those who own land and respect and utilise it for the betterment of people, and those who just hoard land for the sake of owning it and keeping others from it.

I own a house and a garden and am willing to protect it as Robbi implies, I'm certainly not a 'property is theft' sort. I just also appreciate that we are all born in this country and should be allowed to enjoy, respect and thrive within it without being kept out as 'riff-raff' by those who'd keep it as their own personal playground.

There is also, these days, an ever increasing generational wealth gap. It wouldn't seem fair for a nurse who works 80 hours a week but could literally never afford their own house, to not be allowed to enjoy the landscape they were born into. Yes, lots of people who own land now worked very hard too, but I would not be able to agree that they work harder than those in selfless service of working age these days who may never afford even their own home due to generational financial disparities.

 

[Broch]

I'm not aiming that at you, just to be clear. I think there's a big difference between those who own land and respect and utilise it for the betterment of people, and those who just hoard land for the sake of owning it and keeping others from it.

I own a house and a garden and am willing to protect it as Robbi implies, I'm certainly not a 'property is theft' sort. I just also appreciate that we are all born in this country and should be allowed to enjoy, respect and thrive within it without being kept out as 'riff-raff' by those who'd keep it as their own personal playground.

There is also, these days, an ever increasing generational wealth gap. It wouldn't seem fair for a nurse who works 80 hours a week but could literally never afford their own house, to not be allowed to enjoy the landscape they were born into. Yes, lots of people who own land now worked very hard too, but I would not be able to agree that they work harder than those in selfless service of working age these days who may never afford even their own home due to generational financial disparities.

I'm not going to get into an argument about this - it's just not worth it. But a) don't use media data to try to belittle people, and b) don't assume that everyone is born into wealth.

I started my working life as a farm labourer and would never have afforded my own house if I'd continued on that path. I made serious sacrifices to change.

I have the utmost respect for nurses and others in various public service sectors, but the actual figures need to be used if you're going to quote them in a debate. A full-time Nurse in the private sector, will tend to work between 36 and 40 hours a week. A standard full-time working week for NHS Nurses and other NHS professionals is 37.5 hours a week - data from the nurses profession, not mine. Nurses salaries range from level 1 on £22,383 to level 9 toping out at £115,000 per annum. These are not dissimilar salary structures to other professions.

But, we are off topic, we have no more right to land than any other asset. Being born in a country does not give a right to ownership of the turf. In Neolithic times, the guy that sat on the side watching the farmer labour did not have a right to the cultivated land - and that is when the whole problem started. Before that he had as much right as any man to hunt the land because he died of starvation if he didn't.

But, as I said, we are not going to agree on this so I'll back of now

 

[Wayne]

I'm not going to get into an argument about this - it's just not worth it. But a) don't use media data to try to belittle people, and b) don't assume that everyone is born into wealth.

I started my working life as a farm labourer and would never have afforded my own house if I'd continued on that path. I made serious sacrifices to change.

I have the utmost respect for nurses and others in various public service sectors, but the actual figures need to be used if you're going to quote them in a debate. A full-time Nurse in the private sector, will tend to work between 36 and 40 hours a week. A standard full-time working week for NHS Nurses and other NHS professionals is 37.5 hours a week - data from the nurses profession, not mine. Nurses salaries range from level 1 on £22,383 to level 9 toping out at £115,000 per annum. These are not dissimilar salary structures to other professions.

But, we are off topic, we have no more right to land than any other asset. Being born in a country does not give a right to ownership of the turf. In Neolithic times, the guy that sat on the side watching the farmer labour did not have a right to the cultivated land - and that is when the whole problem started. Before that he had as much right as any man to hunt the land because he died of starvation if he didn't.

But, as I said, we are not going to agree on this so I'll back of now

I agree with most of your points but I’d point out that in the trust my wife works in which is a very large NHS trust covering 3-4 counties there are no clinical grade 9 health care professionals. Nurses or others.

My wife has over 40 years clinical experience and is considered a clinical expert in her field yet is only at the top of level 6. Approx £43k.

She rarely switches her laptop off before 8:30 even though she stops getting paid at 5. She also rarely takes a full lunch break.

She has 2 degrees plus loads of post graduate training. I’d say her salary was pretty low considering one wrong decision and she is in a coroner court having every facet of her decision making analysed and potentially faces criminal and civil litigation.

 

[Chris]

I'm not going to get into an argument about this - it's just not worth it. But a) don't use media data to try to belittle people, and b) don't assume that everyone is born into wealth.

I started my working life as a farm labourer and would never have afforded my own house if I'd continued on that path. I made serious sacrifices to change.

I have the utmost respect for nurses and others in various public service sectors, but the actual figures need to be used if you're going to quote them in a debate. A full-time Nurse in the private sector, will tend to work between 36 and 40 hours a week. A standard full-time working week for NHS Nurses and other NHS professionals is 37.5 hours a week - data from the nurses profession, not mine. Nurses salaries range from level 1 on £22,383 to level 9 toping out at £115,000 per annum. These are not dissimilar salary structures to other professions.

But, we are off topic, we have no more right to land than any other asset. Being born in a country does not give a right to ownership of the turf. In Neolithic times, the guy that sat on the side watching the farmer labour did not have a right to the cultivated land - and that is when the whole problem started. Before that he had as much right as any man to hunt the land because he died of starvation if he didn't.

But, as I said, we are not going to agree on this so I'll back of now

I think you're reading a lot more into what I am saying than what I am actually saying, as I said it is not aimed at you and the things you're defending there aren't claims I've made against you. Especially point 'a' there, as I've made no such attempt.

 

[Broch]

I agree with most of your points but I’d point out that in the trust my wife works in which is a very large NHS trust covering 3-4 counties there are no clinical grade 9 health care professionals. Nurses or others.

My wife has over 40 years clinical experience and is considered a clinical expert in her field yet is only at the top of level 6. Approx £43k.

She rarely switches her laptop off before 8:30 even though she stops getting paid at 5. She also rarely takes a full lunch break.

She has 2 degrees plus loads of post graduate training. I’d say her salary was pretty low considering one wrong decision and she is in a coroner court having every facet of her decision making analysed and potentially faces criminal and civil litigation.

I appreciate that Wayne, and I'm sorry to hear about that. But, I would argue that many professions have the same demands on time and work pressures. My wife, a former high school teacher, rarely finished marking or doing lesson prep before bedtime and worked every weekend. She also faced possible court action because a lying pupil claimed she'd grabbed him by the neck. She had a post grad degree and many years experience and didn't earn anything like the value in the effort she put in. There are many, many, jobs I could not do - nursing being one and teaching another but, it's not because of the hours, but the people and systems you have to put up with

 

[Glass-Wood-Steel]

So is a large part of this desire to roam at will fuelled by anger and dissatisfaction at a seemingly unjust system? Being told "no" by someone who is held in contempt because of their status? A question, not an accusation!
On the large part when any one talks about rights they have themselves in mind, resonable, careful individuals with a respect for the land. Unfortunately there are ignorant and destructive people aplenty who should not have access to all areas. You could argue that this may be different if we were not sundered from our ancient cultures. Maybe so, but that is past.
I do not think there should be a general right to roam, further than what exists. I think if individuals seek further access then they should negotiate with the land owner. At worst it will be a "no", however not everyone is unreasonable. I think if I owned a large area of land and woodland, I would not like the idea of all comers trampling about. I would like to know what their intentions were, a peaceful walk vs 12 cans of Stella and a disposable barbeque.
If you put aside the indignation at barred access from a land owner (however they came by their money) you will notice that often these restrictions serve to preserve these areas, intentionally or not.
I am from a working class background and have worked plenty of long hours, low pay and little gratitude. I am not trying to invalidate anybody's feelings or point of view. I just believe perspective is important in these matters.

 

[Chris]

So is a large part of this desire to roam at will fuelled by anger and dissatisfaction at a seemingly unjust system? Being told "no" by someone who is held in contempt because of their status? A question, not an accusation!
On the large part when any one talks about rights they have themselves in mind, resonable, careful individuals with a respect for the land. Unfortunately there are ignorant and destructive people aplenty who should not have access to all areas. You could argue that this may be different if we were not sundered from our ancient cultures. Maybe so, but that is past.
I do not think there should be a general right to roam, further than what exists. I think if individuals seek further access then they should negotiate with the land owner. At worst it will be a "no", however not everyone is unreasonable. I think if I owned a large area of land and woodland, I would not like the idea of all comers trampling about. I would like to know what their intentions were, a peaceful walk vs 12 cans of Stella and a disposable barbeque.
If you put aside the indignation at barred access from a land owner (however they came by their money) you will notice that often these restrictions serve to preserve these areas, intentionally or not.
I am from a working class background and have worked plenty of long hours, low pay and little gratitude. I am not trying to invalidate anybody's feelings or point of view. I just believe perspective is important in these matters.

I think what it boils down to is a modern disassociation between rights and responsibilities. People often demand one without holding themselves accountable for the other. This goes for both sides of the argument, really. People like to talk about what they are owed but not what they owe nature and the society they are a part of.

 

[Glass-Wood-Steel]

I think what it boils down to is a modern disassociation between rights and responsibilities. People often demand one without holding themselves accountable for the other. This goes for both sides of the argument, really. People like to talk about what they are owed but not what they owe nature and the society they are a part of.

Spot on that is!

 

[Suffolkrafter]

I had a thought which surprised me somewhat:
I've always been envious of Scotland's light to roam. My stomping grounds are the lake district, peak district and Snowdonia. So I've tried to think of examples of spots that I've wanted to roam, but haven't been able to due to restrictions - and I can't actually think of any. I've always felt free to roam the fells. Lower down in the valleys there seem to be ample footpaths. As for other areas, I guess I don't have a huge desire to roam through arable land or the small patches of ubiquitous ash woodland. I tend to visit wild life reserves for my local walks. It's just a personal reflection and others may feel far more restricted, I fully recognise this.
I would say access to waterways is perhaps a different matter though.

 

[Paul_B]

What gets me is this rich people owning all the land for to selfishly keeping us off it. This land is ours point of view. A vast proportion of countryside in England is simply farmland. Producing food we eat. They're also the ones dealing with livestock escapes due to people exercising their rights without due care such at closing gates after they've gone through or letting their dog loose around livestock or lighting fires or BBQs at their sneaky wildcamp or no doubt a host of other things.

I think playing the stereotype wealthy landowner card is more than a little disingenuous. I have known a few people from farming families and they're incredibly hard working, honest people. The odd one was wealthy, on paper but only on paper because of the land. They only earn money a few times a year and if they don't earn they're struggling until the next payday. All the time they're watching their money disappear.

But where do they get money? Certain times of the year they sell livestock. Oh but this year they lost a lot of lambs some miscarriages due to dog worrying the ewes. Nice dog walk but they've cost the hill farmer thousand pounds or so in lost livestock. Just one example.

Then there's the dairy farmer. Price for their milk aside they've got a lot to worry about. One good mate had a breakdown during foot and mouth outbreak. Even without that he was never able to take more than one or two long weekends away from the farm. 9 days holiday a year. Oh but he works easily over 12 hours a day pretty much every day. And he's a wealthy landowner who wants to selfishly keep this land to himself? On paper perhaps. All this and he's only asking that you keep to the footpaths and shut the gates behind you. Too hard for some!

Not saying there aren't those selfish landowners, there are but their grouse moors are now open access. Or a lot of it is. Still not enough? We get rights to everywhere. What for? Are we actually going to walk on every square grid of England? Not everywhere benefits us.

 

[Paul_B]

In my long experience of walking in our countryside the instances of a lack of access have been so infrequent that I can almost remember them all. Living near enough to the forest of Bowland most of them involve the area. Since it opened up following CRoW Act coming into effect, and that area was among the first opened up under that legislation, those areas are now fully open. Still some restrictions such as for shooting season, dogs only on public rights of way, etc. These are mostly reasonable restrictions that allow for shared use of the land without conflict.

My point being there's not really a problem with access IME. I have never been prevented from getting my fill of the great outdoors.

 

[Pattree]

However, the OP refers to areas of public access land for which the landowner has usually accepted a financial (tax) inducement to make the land available and then reneged on the deal by preventing access or by not indicating a permitted route to it.

Private agricultural land (or urban industrial land come to that) is covered by the trespass laws as it always have been.

While I might like the concept of freedom to roam, it is not the case here in England and there is no appetite in English politics right now to address either the access issue or the wider freedom to roam.
There is currently no organised public activist group, of which I am aware, addressing it either.

Let’s see what a new government brings - even if it is unlikely that there will be any fewer interested parties in it or that there will be time for the debate.

 

[slowworm]

Where does it say the landowner has accepted a financial (tax) inducement? I could only see a vague reference to grants that could be used to fund access works but nothing saying they've been given money specifically for access and coping with the problems.

I also couldnt see anything specific about the land being 'closed off' as the BBC headline claims.

 

[Paul_B]

CRoW Act offered no financial or tax inducements for access. There are and were before this act schemes to create more access where appropriate in exchange for financial grants or subsidies. AIUI these have the means to remove the financial perks should access be removed.

I have worked on access facilities for such permissive paths when I volunteered for a conservation charity. The facilities I've helped put in were gates, a bridge, styles and modifications to fencing. On one path we put in double row native thorn whips to create a hedge line along the path. With a temporary fence it allowed livestock to be separated from walkers. I would bet some have now been incorporated into the definitive map as legal rights of way. All done with landowner cooperation and support.

 

[nigelp]

There is currently no organised public activist group, of which I am aware, addressing it either.

Quite a few organisations are campaigning for improved, increased and better access to the countryside. It seems only folk on this forum are happy with the meagre amount they have!

https://www.ramblers.org.uk/news/were-campaigning-expand-freedom-roam

https://www.bhs.org.uk/support-us/our-campaigns/project-2026/

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/m...Countryside-access-for-mountain-biking-0?c=EN

https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/road-access