2 Protecting the environment of access
land and the rights of land owners
6. The
majority of access land is probably privately owned, although
there are no comprehensive records of land ownership. Private
landowners had been concerned about people walking across their
land and close to their homes. Landowners had lodged over 3,000
appeals against land being designated as access land, of which
over 2,500 (over three quarters) had been upheld. Most of the
amendments required were relatively minor, and the total area
of access land had decreased by less than 2 ½% as a result
of appeals. There was a risk that the new right to roam could
impact adversely on the environment due to erosion, disturbance
of wildlife or the destruction of plants and habitat. Around half
of access lands included Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
As part of its annual survey Natural England intended to review
the impact of the new access rights on the environment. Natural
England also intended to extend the management of vulnerable sites,
for example by excluding the public from particular areas at certain
times of the year.[7]
7. Temporary restrictions can be imposed on access
land by landowners to protect the land, wildlife, livestock or
the public. The duration of these restrictions depended on the
reason they were required, as shown in figure 3. The information
on the website on each restriction could be difficult to find,
however, as it was often shown below the maps and could be missed
unless readers scrolled down the page. To help walkers comply
with any restrictions, advice could also be posted on physical
signs on the land. Such signs needed to be discreet to avoid unnecessary
visual damage to an area, but existing signage did not carry information
of likely future restrictions and could be confusing.[8]
8. Landowners considered the control of dogs to be
the single biggest potential problem on access land and in the
countryside generally. Existing guidance on where dogs were allowed
in the countryside and whether they should be on a lead was, however,
confusing. Dogs were allowed on some areas of access land, but
not on others, and in some areas only if kept on a lead with a
maximum length of two metres. The rules governing dogs on access
land were also different from those for walking dogs on rights
of ways, where dogs should be under close control. The Chief Executive
of Natural England acknowledged that the website and signage on
the ground should be sufficiently clear so that dog owners could
safely assume that dogs were allowed on access land unless the
website or signage advised them otherwise.[9]
Figure 3: There is a confusing array of restrictions that can be imposed
on access land
Source: National Audit Office and the Countryside Agency
9. Landowners were concerned that they might be held
liable by members of the public who were injured whilst walking
on access land. Existing legislation[10]
removes any liabilities for accidents as a result of any natural
feature of the landscape (such as plants or rocks), but in the
absence of case law the legal position remains ambiguous over
any liabilities for accidents arising from man-made structures
(such as mineshafts) or from cattle. Some landowners had decided
to minimise the risk by fencing off particular hazards, but this
approach could have an adverse impact on the appearance of the
landscape. Natural England ran an Access Management Grant Scheme
to provide signage and improve the safety of access land. The
budget for 2006-07 had, however, been reduced from £1.5 million
to £400,000 because of spending cuts imposed by the Department.[11]
10. Farmers with livestock on access land were concerned
about the bio-security implications of the new rights. Greater
numbers of walkers moving between different areas of land could
increase the risk of inadvertent transmission of infectious animal
diseases between areas, and an increase in the land area accessible
by the public meant that in the event of an outbreak of an infectious
animal disease there would be greater need for restrictions on
access. The Department intended to use links established with
farmers and land managers together with statutory restrictions
to set out access rights clearly in the event of a future outbreak.[12]
7 Qq 34-5, 65, 73-75, 122, 126-130; C&AG's Report,
para 1.4 Back
8
Qq 108-113 Back
9
Qq 13-15; C&AG's Report, paras 3.17-3.19 Back
10
Countryside Rights of Way Act 2000 Back
11
Qq 84-5, 116-8, 131-4 Back
12
Q 17 Back
|
