Outdoor campaigners said the CLA's proposals would restrict public access

Outdoor campaigners have accused the country landowners’ organisation of reneging on a two-year-old agreement to work together on rights of way.

The Ramblers said the Country Land and Business Association’s Right Way Forward report on access was ‘opportunist’, coming in the same week as a farming panel report and anticipating the imminent Government action on reducing countryside red tape.

The Open Spaces Society said the CLA’s paper was ‘a lightly-veiled promotion of their own selfish interests’.

The association, which represents country landowners in England and Wales, said: “The access debate has been characterised by an obsession with ‘rights’.

“The opportunities to be offered by other types of access have been dismissed because of the absolutist and uncompromising approach taken by campaigners.

“The ideological arguments that have shaped access debates have failed to consider the wider picture.”

It also remains implacably opposed to coastal access, which is progressing at a snail’s pace under the coalition Government after the last Labour Government passed the Marine and Coastal Access Act.

“The CLA remains fundamentally opposed to the coastal access legislation,” it said. “We believe it does not take sufficient account of landowners’ rights. Now that the actual process has commenced, we see no evidence to allay those fears.”

The Ramblers said the CLA report suggests reducing protection for rights of way. “They instead favour a system where people can use the countryside by permission from those who own the land,” the Ramblers said, “making it easier to alter and take away the routes which people use.

“If this package of recommendations was taken on by Government it could fundamentally undermine people’s ability to enjoy walking in the countryside, an activity which is a popular pursuit for millions and a fundamental right we cherish.”

The CLA paper echoes many of the recommendations of the Government’s Farming Regulation Taskforce published earlier this week, including implementing the cut-off date of 2026 after which no new footpaths could be established.

Benedict Southworth: 'CLA being opportunistic'

Benedict Southworth, Ramblers chief executive, said: “We reached agreement with the CLA on many of these issues two years ago as part of a working group set up to look at the future of rights of way and we are disappointed that this report reneges on many of those jointly agreed commitments.

“It’s a shame that the CLA have chosen to make what looks like an opportunistic bid to keep close to the Government, at the expense of everyone who loves the countryside.

“With announcements expected any day now from Government on reducing environmental ‘red tape’, and plans already unveiled this week about reducing farming regulation, we feel that this represents a further attack on our rights to walk in and enjoy the countryside.

“At the moment there is a system which manages the fine balance between respecting the needs of the landowner against the enjoyment of those wishing to walk in the countryside. If these changes were implemented by the Government that balance would be destroyed.

“Walking is one of the most popular recreation activities in this country and the outcry over the forestry sales shows the level of feeling people have towards using and protecting their local green spaces. We shall resist any reduction in our ability to enjoy the great outdoors and so will all those who cherish this important part of our heritage.”

Kate Ashbrook, general secretary of the Open Spaces Society, the country’s oldest national conservation charity, was equally forthright about the CLA report. “‘The CLA uses weasel words like ‘simplifying’ and ‘modernising’ the system,” she said. “But most of their proposals cut the protection which the system provides to the users.

“What we need is for landowners to respect public paths, and acknowledge that the paths were there first, and for Government and local authorities to recognise the immense public, health and economic benefits of the path network and to invest in it, in the interests of all.”

She added: “The CLA’s talk about ‘modernising’ the access system is a lightly-veiled promotion of their own selfish interests.

“The CLA wants landowners to have powers to move ancient highways when it suits them, away from farmyards, gardens or businesses.

“There is no mention that paths were there long before these modern activities. It’s the activity which should accommodate the path, not the other way round.

Kate Ashbrook: 'Report uses weasel words'. Photo: Andrew McCloy

“Our paths have existed since time immemorial. Yet too many are abused by cropping, ploughing and obstruction, all too often by landowners and their tenants.

“The CLA is big on what the local councils and path users should do: signposting, waymarking, good behaviour, etc. It doesn’t mention landowners’ bad behaviour in blocking paths, planting crops on them, and intimidating users with big gates and CCTV cameras.

“The CLA advocates permissive rather than legal paths but these flexi-paths are not in the public interest.

“People need to be certain of where they can go; in other words, the path must be a public highway. Then they know it can’t be stopped up or moved without due process, and that the highway authority has a duty to maintain it.

“Permissive paths can come and go with no protection. They may suit landowners but not the users.”

The landowners’ organisation said in its report that footpaths across fields should only be one metre wide.

Ms Ashbrook said: “The CLA wants a fixed width for the myriad of paths with no defined width, but the CLA’s proposed widths are mean. Users need the space to pass each other comfortably and not be squeezed up against barbed-wire fence or sprouting hedge.

“The CLA reneges on an agreement it reached with other interests only two years ago. It calls for an immediate halt to claims for ancient paths, revoking the age-old rule ‘Once a highway always a highway’.

“Yet it signed an agreement with users and local authorities which called on Government to introduce measures to simplify and speed up the process for claiming paths. Ministers are still considering these, and must implement the proposals before there can be any halt to the opportunity for the public to claim ancient routes for the map.”

Among other proposals in the CLA document are that path users take responsibility for their own safety, with landowners strictly liable only for animals which are inherently dangerous or where the keeper has been negligent.

Where walkers and other users do not comply with the Countryside Code, they should not be able to seek legal redress.

The CLA also wants Government to enable the temporary or permanent closure of paths where persistent illegal or anti-social use occurs.

Local partnerships similar to Parish Paths Partnerships, drawn from users, landowners and parish councils, could be responsible for the management of access within parishes.

It said highway authorities should be encouraged by Government to properly enforce use of rights of way, including situations where problems are experienced by landowners.

Authorities must accept that their responsibility for public access includes that of ensuring public compliance with the rights granted, the CLA said, and footpath wardens or countryside rangers should ensure proper use of public rights of way.

Landowners and highway authorities and landowners should have the power to close paths where illegal or anti-social use is taking place.

The CLA also says other outdoor recreation enthusiasts are pressing for similar rights to walkers. “Riparian owners are under threat. There is increasing pressure for access to and along rivers.

“Campaigning has been led by canoeists, but rafters, swimmers and extreme sports enthusiasts are all keen to gain greater and free-of-charge access to water.

“Conflict between canoeists and fishermen has been intensifying. Fishermen who have paid large sums of money for exclusive access often feel most aggrieved about infringement of the rights they have bought.”