The ongoing legal battle over the right to camp on Dartmoor which returned to the courts this week has generated an unedifying debate which mirrors the unpleasant and unproductive discussion over access rights as a whole. On the one hand there is the suggestion that all landowners adopt a ‘get off my land’ mentality to the public and on the other that all those who come into the countryside drop litter, disturb wildlife and leave gates open. Of course, neither position is true although there are plenty of individual examples of both behaviours and most importantly nothing positive comes from an argument about who behaves the worst.
I was walking a section of the Ridgeway in Buckinghamshire on a perfect autumn day last weekend and, as is invariably the case, saw only a handful of people on that famous route in a densely populated part of the country. There was certainly no suggestion that the owners of the land we crossed were hostile. In fact, several had put up signs with information about farming and conservation practices. The only litter we saw was along a stretch of a few hundred yards where the path followed a road. Far from the hostility and demonstrations outside the court, the whole experience was as tranquil and enjoyable as the countryside inevitably is.
My experience as an active user of some of the 140,000 miles of rights of way in England and Wales is that most landowners are welcoming, and that very few are hostile. Meanwhile every representative farming and landowning organisation is positive about increasing and improving public access to the countryside. Equally, I have met few, if any, people using rights of way who seem motivated to engage in a political battle over extending their access rights. Yet even established organisations like The Ramblers actively campaign for blanket access to woodlands and waterways, whilst more radical groups are calling for the presumption of access and the removal of trespass laws entirely.
Leaving aside the tricky question of how these groups can also claim that they are interested in protecting nature, the real nonsense is that such campaigns are completely contradictory to what the public actually wants. The majority of people want paths that are accessible from their homes or by car, which are solid, easily walked, well maintained and clearly signposted. These requirements can be, and regularly are, provided by landowners by consent. With energy, ambition and collaboration there are hundreds of miles of the existing rights of way network which could be added to and made more accessible for more people.
Yet, sadly, the access debate this week centres around a Dartmoor landowner, who is always described as a hedge funder, and the ‘right’ to wild camp. Next week will undoubtedly move on to the ‘right’ to access an aristocrat’s parkland or a pop star’s pheasant coverts.
There is far too much of the access debate which is about politics, rather than practicalities. Labour flirted with the ‘right to roam’ in opposition, although it did not make any commitments in its manifesto. The new government would be well advised to focus on delivering increased access for people who really want to visit the countryside through agreement with the majority of sensible landowners who are happy to facilitate that. A culture war in the countryside over rights to roam would benefit nobody.