Talkback: Ramblers Alarmed By Farming Proposals

as someone who likes to roam around counrtyside as well as high places this looks a bit worrying to me,access to rights of way can be hard to distinguish sometimes through low usage so think the ramblers are right to be concerned about this plan. who is this mcdonald person anyway?? please no burger jokes ;-0

Is this only applicable in Englandwales?

The Macdonald Committee was set up by the Government to suggest ways to reduce the amount of red tape and regulation that so irk the farming and landowning community. Its remit covers the whole of the UK but its recommendations for rights of way apply only to England and Wales.

The process for diverting and extinguishing rights of way in England and Wales is complicated, bureaucratic and expensive. Even seemingly sensible alterations that would benefit both farmer and walker, such as diverting a footpath to avoid a farmyard, can be held up because a single objection has been received from a member of the public. There are, or have been in the past, 'professional objectors' who, as a matter of principle, don't want any changes to the path network.

Many years ago, as the Footpath Secretary of my local rambling club, I was involved in a case where, with the agreement of local walkers and amenity societies, a householder applied to divert a footpath that ran through his garden. He wanted to move it a few metres to the other side of his hedge so that it went through the adjacent paddock that he owned. We all expected it to go through on the nod, but a 'professional objector' from hundreds of miles away read about the proposed diversion advertised in the 'London Gazette', and objected. He had no knowledge of the local circumstances but I had great difficulty in persuading him to withdraw his objection.

What seems to have upset the Ramblers is that they had agreed, with the CLA and other farming interests, on a joint approach to the Macdonald Committee, and are upset that the CLA has broken ranks to pursue, what the Ramblers claim, is their own selfish interests. As far as I can make out from the CLA press release, there seems little in it that would materially harm the interests of walkers, but I'm reserving judgement until I've seen the document outlining the CLA's views.

Hugh

Further to my earlier post, there is one matter I failed to mention.

Under the CRoW Act, 2026 is the cut-off date for claiming so-called 'lost ways'. These pare paths or routes that were not claimed as rights of way when the Definitive Map for each highway authority was published. It is still possible, providing sufficient evidence exists, for these routes to be reclaimed, but this will not be possible after 2026.

The Ramblers are anxious that as many as possible are claimed in time. The cost of the process of claiming these, mostly ancient, routes is hugely expensive and the CLA argues, with some justification in my view, that the rights of way network is so dense that there is little point in adding additional paths. (For our Scottish friends unfamiliar with the rights of way system in England and Wales, it's worth pointing out that in lowland countryside it's difficult to be more than a mile from a public path. I'm a pathchecker for the Ramblers for three parishes in rural Buckinghamshire and each one has at least six miles of public paths.)

The CLA's Executive summary and full report can be downloaded (fingers crossed!) here.

Hugh