Horsey Talk

New proposals to modernise the process of recording rights of way, developed in consultation with the BHS and groups such as the Ramblers and Country Land and Business Association, have been unveiled by Environment Minister Richard Benyon.

Plans are expected to cut the time taken to record a right of way by as much as several years, so that routes set to be lost in 2026 can be preserved.

All unrecorded footpaths and bridleways created before 1949 cannot be recorded after 1 January 2026. This ‘cut off’ date by which to claim these historical rights of way was set in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

As well as making it easier for walkers, horse riders and cyclists to protect unrecorded rights of way, the proposed system is expected to save almost £20 million a year by cutting needless bureaucracy.

No changes are being made to the protections for rights of way; rather proposals have been made to make the process of recording or changing them more efficient.

Landowners’ applications to move a right of way will continue to be approved only if they do not affect the public’s enjoyment of it, in which case it will be more straightforward for landowners to see them through.

Under logical new plans, paths and trails that are used by the public will be easier to protect, whilst redundant routes and unsubstantiated rights of way claims will be prevented from getting in the way of farming and business interests.

Environment Minister, Richard Benyon said:

"Footpaths, bridleways and trails are the life-blood for many rural communities, providing access to our world-renowned landscapes. Our changes will help protect access for the thousands of people who walk, ride and cycle in the countryside every week. "

"Protecting and improving access to the countryside is the latest in a programme of Government measures to grow the rural economy."

"These routes have huge benefits to the health and wellbeing of those that use them and can help stimulate the local economy, bringing in more visitors to enjoy rural areas."

A £2 million grant fund has opened for applications from local communities today to improve access to rural areas in ways that will grow the regional economy.

The Paths for Communities initiative is part of the Government’s £165 million Rural Economy Growth Review announced in November 2011. Local volunteer groups are invited to bid for funding to create new rights of way or increase the accessibility of existing ones. This may include making rights of way accessible for horses and bikes, improving way marking, creating maps and making better links with local transport services and tourist destinations.

The proposals in the rights of way consultation are based on recommendations from a Stakeholder Working Group, which issued the following statement today:

"We welcome this consultation package, which builds on the Stakeholder Working Group recommendations, and are keen to continue to work constructively with the Government throughout the consultation and implementation process".

Improvements to the policy and legal framework for public rights of way’ is online at http://www.defra.gov.uk/consult/2012/05/14/improve-rights-of-way/
The consultation closes on 6 August 2012.

Paths for Communities is administered by Natural England

Says the OPEN SPACES SOCIETY

The Open Spaces Society is pleased that Defra is launching a public consultation about plans to make it easier to get England's official map of public paths up to date.

The 'definitive' maps of rights of way are lamentably incomplete. There are many public footpaths, bridleways and byways which are highways in law but are not shown on the map and are thus hidden and secret. The process for putting them on the map can be long and tortuous, and much of the work falls on the surveying authorities (county and unitary councils).

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduced a cut-off date of 1 January 2026 for the claim of many ancient highways and ministers promised funding to ensure the maps could be brought up to date before the cut off. Half that period has now elapsed yet no progress has been made and the backlogs of path claims are increasing.

A working party of wide interests, convened by Natural England, made recommendations to ministers in March 2010 (Stepping Forward) and, two years later, the environment minister Richard Benyon is consulting the public on the working party's agreed package.

The consultation proposes that the cut-off date should be implemented only if the whole package of measures is introduced. This speeds up and simplifies the process for claiming paths and determining whether they should be added to the map.

Says Kate Ashbrook, general secretary of the Open Spaces Society, a member of the working group: 'We are pleased that the environment minister has at last launched the public consultation, the first stage to getting our recommendations enshrined in law. The maps will never be up to date unless the processes are simplified and streamlined. This of course chimes with government's wish to reduce red tape.

"In the 12 years since the 2026 cut-off was introduced in law, local authorities' backlogs of path claims have increased, not least due to budget cuts. To take two random examples, Staffordshire County Council has a 17-year backlog, and Gloucestershire has a ten-year backlog, and these are set to increase.

'The effect of all this is that there are countless highways which we have the right to use and enjoy but, because they are unrecorded, are at risk of being built over and incorporated into development-after which it is almost impossible to save them. Many have already been lost.

'It is unusual for so many organisations with different interests to become bedfellows, but the government's consultation proposals are backed by the Open Spaces Society, British Horse Society and Ramblers, as well as the Country Land and Business Association, National Farmers' Union and local authorities and other organisations.

'So we hope there will be widespread support for the plans so that legislation to speed up the claims process can be introduced in the third session of this parliament. The year 2026 will soon be upon us,' warns Kate.

Says Maureen Comber

The statement from Richard Benyon that - "Protecting and improving access to the countryside is the latest in a programme of Government measures to grow the rural economy. These routes have huge benefits to the health and wellbeing of those that use them and can help stimulate the local economy, bringing in more visitors to enjoy rural areas." -

Is most welcome and I congratulate him for recognizing the desperate need to address an issue which for some of us has taken a lifetime of lobbying successive governments to address, in particular, the case for horse riders. They of all the User Groups have been badly discriminated against over the years. Disgracefully under the last government 'open access' provided in excess of £90,000,000 worth of benefit to walkers only and Sustrans has been similarly funded for cycle tracks. Meanwhile horse riders have been disenfranchised on the country lanes because of the dominance of motor vehicles and the fragmented bridleway network and advised to seek co-operation from landowners. That advice has wrought nothing in terms of additional bridleways or even basic safety measures on the minor county lanes.

I shall be suggesting that the Coalition might consider re-visiting the grading of RUPPS to BOATS or vice versa since many of the byways in Hampshire have been wrongly upgraded from RUPP (road used as a public path) to BOAT during the 1980's directive from central government under the Wildlife & Countryside Act. I can say this with certainty having looked at the Highway Committee minutes of that time and seen that the upgrade was done on the mere finding of wheel marks on the track. This was against the advice from DEFRA (attached) that this could not be, and that 20 years use by motor vehicles before 1930 was needed for the upgrade to be verified.

This would save many of our ancient lanes from the continual abuse by motor vehicles which deprives the intended principal non-motorised group of users from the use and enjoyment of them.

Also a closer look should be taken at Local Authorities who take care to tick all the right boxes but then do not act accordingly when it comes to improving access to the countryside. As an example Hampshire County Council acted against public opinion, local parish councils, the local commoners and the law when they removed 80 acres of common land from the Register of Common Land for which they are the Registration Authority, without application to the Secretary of State. This is a criminal offence.

It is settled law that no rights can be obtained from illegal acts which were unlawful in the first place and yet Hampshire County Council have for years kept horse riders from accessing their customary rights of access to Broxhead Common on the pretext that their lease of the rest of the common does not include access by horse riders. That lease appears to be an irrelevant out of court settlement with the landowner and therefore fraudulent as well as unlawful.

There is much that could be achieved without waiting for more consultation.

The CLA and NFU, however, do not agree:

• www.defra.gov.uk
• www.cla.org.uk
  

Writes Tony Barnett

I HAVE BEEN CONTACTED TO DAY REGARDING CHORLEYWOOD COMMON, AS YOU MAY REMEMBER WE CORRESPONDED SOME WEEKS AGO.

MY REQUEST THEN WAS FOR DISCLOSURE OF PRE-REGISTRATION OF TITLES TO THE COMMON LAND, WHICH YOU CLAIMED WAS/IS OWNED BY YOUR COUNCIL.

I AM FULLY AWARE OF THE COMMON BEING BROUGHT UNDER THE 1899 REGULATION ACT IN 1946, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR AIR, EXERCISE AND RECREATION, NOT ENCLOSURE.

ENCLOSURE COULD HAVE ONLY HAVE BEEN LAWFUL IF, IT WAS BY THE LORD OF THE MANOR (1776), BUT SINCE THE 2006 COMMONS ACT ENCLOSURE/APPROVEMENT HAS BEEN REPEALED (47-1) AND THE POWERS TO ENCLOSE HAVE BEEN PROHIBITED (47-2).

MAY I AGAIN REQUEST ACCESS TO THE PRE-REGISTRATION OF TITLES AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENTATION (YOU CLAIMED THAT THE LAND WAS "DEEDED" TO YOU) IN WHAT MANNER WAS THE LAND VESTED?

Says Bob Milton

There is no HLS agreement listed on the NE site for the common, only a Countryside Stewardship agreement 15CSS011368

It is listed as a Local Nature Reserve but not an SSSI. It is shown as lowland heath over the whole with Calcareous Grassland over laying 50% of the lowland heath. The Countryside Stewardship agreement runs out in September 2012 and only covers 23ha of the common where as the common as a LNR is 75ha.

So where is the HLS and when was it agreed or signed?

There is no guidance for NE officers to take into account existing public access when entering into agri or environmental stewardship schemes. Which begs the question as to why when the general purpose of Natural England is to include 'promoting access'. This would or should include the protection of existing public rights but it seems to me that there is an institutionalised discrimination against existing public access rights and a complete disregard for its statutory duty under the Equality Act 2010 notably

• Part 3 including Schedules 2 and 3 makes it unlawful to discriminate against, harass or victimise a person when providing a service (which includes the provision of goods or facilities) or when exercising a public function.
• Part 4 including Schedules 4 and 5 makes it unlawful to discriminate against, harass or victimise a person when disposing of (for example, by selling or letting) or managing premises.
• Part 11 including Schedules 18 and 19 establishes a general duty on public authorities to have due regard, when carrying out their functions, to the need: to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment or victimisation; to advance equality of opportunity; and to foster good relations.

This being at the centre of the fencing and gating of the public access commons which are held for public recreation and exercise. The dominant tenement of this common is not nature conservation but public access and this seems to have been lost in the head on rush to introduce cattle to the detriment of the public's rights

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006

General purpose

1. Natural England's general purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, theraby contributing to sustainable development.
2. Natural England's general purpose includes :-
   1. promoting nature conservation and protecting biodiversity,
   2. conserving and enhancing the landscape,
   3. securing the provision and improvement of facilities for the study, understanding and enjoyment of the natural environment,
   4. promoting access to the countryside and open spaces and encouraging open-air recreation, and
   5. contributing in other ways to social and economic well-being through management of the natural environment.
3. The purpose in subsection (2)(e) may, in particular, be carried out by working with local communities.

Says Steve Yandall

Could I remind you of the stance taken by EN and its morph NE in applying for grant funding in our own instance(Penwith) and throughout the trans national HEATH Project.?

1. the application to HLF stated that public access was a degrading factor and instrumental in the erosion of heathland.
2. the 1997 HLF(£14 million I believe)contract was 'non standard' in that it excluded two standard clauses(verified by Verita);
   1. a.to seek public agreement.
   2. b.to allow for the disabled.

I believe both the above factors were indicators of intent and that combined with the confirmation,by letter(Mathew Carter,2009,NE Cornwall manager) that NE had no intention of catering for the disabled a picture starts to emerge of not only disregard but unlawfulness.In tandem with the above a reliance on anecdote rather than veracious research relative to public access pre and post HLS indicates an unwillingness to face the reality of NE depressing access.

Further to the above audits of sample heathland in Cornwall showed that none were taking a positive trajectory of change(they were in decline) after 20 plus years of ESA management however this opportunity was taken to impose HLS as a 'cureall' with the only scapegoats being equine/human erosion and a failure of ESA .

I was present when a steward stated that the condition of Carn Galva was "criminal".A very apt description as the failure of ESA can be more easily attributed to a failure to educate,monitor and enforce than a failure of any husbandry regime.In essence payments were made with no initiation of husbandry BUT NE ignored this clear failure in order to promote 'new' without the real failures being attended to.

I can only deduce that public access has been sacrificed to protect NE's 'expertise' and 'credibility' whilst also fitting the European funding criteria relative to maximising income by adopting husbandry that DEMANDS fencing.

The irony is that the fiscal laxity associated with HLS is a huge contributor to global environmental degradation as the very tool of 'salvation' is also the result and measure of material damage. The real tool of salvation lies in public education and participation which,very unfortunately,is the main casualty in this current imposition.

The above commentary is a general HLS precis that also applies to Common Land but,having monitored Carnyorth Common(Penwith) for 4 years HLS has failed to make inroads into Bracken,access has fallen by 80%,archaeology has suffered serial damage,horses have been injured,multiple unlawful events have happened,£20k of payments were "withheld" because of Save Penwith Moors monitoring and the archetypal Penwith heathland is aesthetically challenged with a low rate of heather regeneration where management has been applied.

I remind you that the research definition of heathland is a "plagioclimax community dominated by dwarf ericaceous shrubs" whereas grazing regimes produce a more undefined result.

The criteria alluded to by both senior NE staff and politicians places a paramount importance on maximising the Cornish and English 'cut' of the European budget rather than 'best practice' and 'duty of care' in ensuring that monies achieve all that providers(ourselves)would wish.

As you know I believe that inundation and population growth are propelling the UK toward the loss of wild places and access to ensure food/housing etc are accomodated.HLS is but an introduction to the future whereby the quality of life is compromised to ensure consumerism thrives.

Apologies,I am getting too deep.

Natural England is the government’s advisor on the natural environment.

They are supposed to provide practical advice, grounded in science, on how best to safeguard England’s natural wealth for the benefit of everyone.

They are supposed to ensure sustainable stewardship of the land and sea so that people and nature can thrive.

They are supposed to see that England’s rich natural environment can adapt and survive intact for future generations to enjoy.

They are supposed to work with farmers and land managers; business and industry; planners and developers; national and local government; interest groups and local communities to help them improve their local environment.

Except in many cases they dont. In fact, in some cases they are doing the exact opposite.

READ MORE HERE