APPENDIX 6
Memorandum submitted by the Open Spaces
Society (R5)
INTRODUCTION
1. The Open Spaces Society, formally the
Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, was founded
in 1865 and is Britain's oldest national conservation body. We
campaign for the protection of common land, town and village green,
open spaces and public paths, in town and country, throughout
England and Wales. We have 2,350 members consisting of individuals,
organisations and local authorities.
2. The society has campaigned throughout
most of its existence for freedom to roam on common land and open
country. For us, as for thousands of others, the enactment of
the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 was an important milestone
and a cause for great celebration. We are delighted too that implementation
of access to open country and common land by the end of 2005 is
a government PSA target.
MAPPING OF
ACCESS LAND
3. We recognise what a massive and complex
task this is, and consider the Countryside Agency deserves credit
for what it has achieved. Naturally, we have felt frustrated at
the delays in the process, but we recognise that this was uncharted
territory and the agency had quickly to establish how it was going
to carry out this task, with no opportunity for experiment. Not
surprisingly, there have been problems with the early regions,
especially region 2, but we understand that the agency and the
contractors feel they have learnt from their mistakes. Provided
that there are no further problems from now on, access should
still be achieved on target.
4. The sad discovery is that, as a result
of the last-minute amendment to the bill to exclude improved and
semi-improved grassland, much land which we had thought would
appear as downland has been excluded from the map and land which
we, and many in Parliament, had thought would be access land has
been excluded. This is particularly regrettable in the south of
England where access land is anyway limited.
5. In some cases we have been puzzled by
the exclusion of some land from the draft maps when other land
which appears identical in character has been included. It would
help if it could be made clear to the public exactly why these
discrepancies occur.
6. We welcome the announcement by the minister,
Alun Michael, at the end of last year, that access would be commenced
on a regional basis, starting with regions 1 and 3 in the summer
of 2004.
SMALL AREAS
7. Under section 4(5)(b) of the act, the
agency has discretion about the inclusion of areas "which
are so small that . . . their inclusion would serve no useful
purpose". We are concerned that, after publishing the draft
maps for regions 1 and 2, the agency changed the way in which
it decided whether the areas should be included. In fact it made
it easier to exclude them (ie originally, areas of less than five
hectares had to fulfil five criteria, now the agency only has
to bear these criteria in mind, which is more subjective).
8. In the case of regions 1 and 2, the agency
had included on the draft maps the areas it was minded to exclude
under the original, tougher, criteria, thus giving people the
opportunity to argue for their inclusion, but the agency then
applied the new methodology retrospectively and the public lost
out on the chance to argue for the inclusion of these areas. This
is particularly regrettable in those areas where open country
occurs only in small parcels anyway, and which are therefore even
more valuable to the public
Discrepancies between draft and provisional maps
9. We submitted over 100 comments on the
draft map for region 1, claiming that land which was omitted ought
to be included. The agency sent us "determination" sheets
showing the fate of each of the areas we had claimed. Some of
them were included, but, in four cases, land we had been told
would be included did not appear on the provisional map. We queried
this in December 2002 and await a reply. We do not know what is
the process for rectifying such errors.
EAST SUSSEX
COMMONS
10. After the Countryside Agency had produced
the draft maps for region 1 it discovered that there was no final
common land register for East Sussex. The registers were lost
in a fire in 1993 and the council promoted a private bill (at
some expense) in 1994 to enable it to reconstitute them. East
Sussex ratepayers may be surprised to learn that eight years later
the council has still not finalised the register, with the result
that commons in that county cannot be included on the access map.
As a result the public will lose out on access to the commons
until the maps are reviewed. We are aware that the minister has
asked the council to speed up the finalisation of the register,
and the agency has said it will have an early review of the access
maps here to enable the commons to be included as soon as possible.
RESOURCES
11. It is essential that government provides
sufficient resources for the successful implementation of access
once the land is mapped. The legislation will work much more smoothly
and without argument if money is available to assist owners and
occupiers in positively and sympathetically managing the land
for access. They should be encouraged to use management measures
instead of applying for closures and restrictions.
12. Clearly the closures and restrictions
will be costly to the public purse. Far better value for money
can be achieved through using that money to manage of the land
in the interests of everyone. We trust therefore that the government
will enable this valuable legislation to work to the greatest
public benefit by ensuring that there are sufficient funds available
now and in the future.
13. It is vitally important too that local
authorities spend the additional money they are given for implementation
of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act for that purpose and
not allow the money to be filched for other things. We urge government
to keep a close watch on this and ensure that the money is spent
on access.
The Open Spaces Society
31 January 2003
| 
