Natural England

Access to 'other' land (NCAF 2/1)

Purpose

1. The Agency reported to the last meeting (NCAF 1 / 4) on the basis for its advice on access to "other" land and the Agency's approach to the subject. This paper provides an update on progress and emerging issues.

Background

2. The Government's Framework for Action published in March 1999 asked the two countryside agencies and the Forestry Commission to report on access to "other" types of open country such as coastal land, watersides and woodland.

3. To provide the basis for its advice to Government, the Agency commissioned two pieces of factual research. Market research, and the development of wider advice on access to these additional categories of land.

Demand

4. The study contracted to the MVA consultancy is nearing completion. The components include:

• an omnibus survey of the public to measure the extent of public satisfaction with existing access arrangements on the additional categories of land and the potential demand for change;
• a series of focus groups used to develop these issues in more detail;
• a local access survey to calibrate the national results in three areas of the countryside where the current access position is already known;
• specialist user research - exploring the requirements and demands of horse riders, climbers, cyclists etc. This work will report in September.  

Annex 1 summarise emerging findings from the omnibus survey based on a representative sample of around 1700 members of the public resident in England.

Wider advice

5. The study contracted to a consortium led by Surrey University is near completion and is clarifying:

• the views of the main interest groups on access to these land types;
• the existing supply of land in the categories and the extent of access opportunities over these areas, in so far as data are available on this; and
• experience both in the UK and abroad in relation to provision of such access, minimising negative impacts and maximising positive ones.  

6. The views of key interest groups were determined through a postal questionnaire and a number of follow up face to face discussions with particular organisations, to complement the views these organisations sent to DETR during the original Government consultation exercise. Emerging findings are at Annex 2.

7. The Surrey team are finalising data about the accessibility of the additional categories of land. There is a significant lack of data to draw on, so the picture will be patchy. Experience from other countries in relation to access to these land types is also being summarised.

Next Steps

16 September - The Countryside Agency Board considers a paper summarising the research findings, and setting out the main options for change being discussed with the Forestry Commission, Environment Agency and Countryside Council for Wales. These agencies will take similar papers to their own Boards.

Late October - Formal advice will be submitted to Government by the Agency, Forestry Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales together with a summary of the consultants' reports. Government will then consider the way forward and what further work, if any, is required of the agencies on this front.

Annex 1

EMERGING FINDINGS ON DEMAND FROM MVA WORK

1. The study confirms the general public interest in visiting the countryside. 80% visit it at some point during the year - 37% every week. The great bulk of this public use is on foot.

2. Only about one fifth of the public are both confident and accurate in their understanding of current countryside access laws. This is consistent with the findings of previous survey work by MVA.

3. Woods, inland water and coastal land are all popular land types that the public like to visit. For example 91% of countryside walkers visit woods, 89% visit watersides and 80% visit coastal land (although the frequency of coastal visiting is less because the coast is often furthest from people's homes).

4. About 70% of people with local woods, watersides and/or coastal land feel unable to use at least some of this land. Given a choice of reasons, feelings of being uncertain about the land available to them or feeling excluded or unwelcome feature significantly.

5. 80% of the population support the principle of Government introducing improved rights for the public to use these three land types. Of these:

• Two thirds favour confining the rights to people on foot, a quarter of whom would also like to see walkers' dogs excluded;
• One third favour giving improved rights to cyclists and horse riders as well as to people on foot. (We do not have any breakdown of their views on dogs).  

These figures were very similar across all three land types.

6. So far as water-based activities go, some 69% of the population favour greater public rights - but three quarters of these would want to see the rights confined to unpowered craft.

7. These high levels of support for the principle of improving public access rights do not imply that all of those in favour would expect to take advantage of any new rights personally. Just over a quarter of the public as a whole think that new rights would change their own use of the countryside. This figure is significantly higher among horse riders, cyclists and water users. 

Annex 2

EMERGING FINDINGS FROM SURREY UNIVERSITY QUESTIONNAIRE EXERCISE

Questionnaires were sent out to key interest groups and some large estates etc. There was a good response rate of over 60% despite the short time we were able to give organisations to respond, and the complexity of the issue. The 73 responses were received from:

Landowners/managers and their organisations: 15 
Professional organisations: 16 
National park/local authorities: 10 
Statutory agencies etc: 12 
Environmental interests, user groups etc: 20 

Responses were sought at officer level and an undertaking not to publish attributed views was given.

The majority of respondents commented most explicitly to access on foot. This category seemed to be less controversial than riding, cycling or other water based activities. Many respondents saw extended access on foot to all these areas as acceptable. A significant number of respondents preferred voluntary arrangements, but it was also conceded by some that voluntary arrangements had not delivered required results in the past. Almost all respondents agreed that access arrangements should be amended in some way.

A large proportion of respondents favoured linear access over area access to these land types, although it was accepted by very many of the informants that some area access would in practice be desirable. Area rights, it was felt, would result in linear use.

There was concern about possible damage from horse riding. There is also significant argument between anglers and others about appropriate use of the water resource. Given that motorised use was not raised explicitly in the questionnaire this issue was not identified as a problem area by respondents. Motorised interests did not generally wish to gain extended access over the land types in question.

By Land Type

The following main points emerged for the individual land types:

Coastal - There was little opposition to extending access to this land type if appropriate safeguards and restrictions applied. Issues of intra user conflict should be addressed and comprehensive signage used. 
Inland watersides - there was a general feeling that care to preserve ecology was required and a caution against use by cyclists or horses. Some respondents wondered how new development proposals arising from access, or interfering with access, would be assessed in the future. 
Inland water - Many respondents were unwilling or unable to respond fully to the area of access provisions for water. Intra user conflicts seem to be the main issue. Charging/licensing for canoeing and similar activities seemed to be a common suggestion. 
Woods and Forests - many viewed access to forests on foot as acceptable, if managed. Horse and cycle use was considered to cause damage. It was felt that such costs should be met by government, or by users. Most respondents felt that linear access was appropriate, in practice, for woodlands. 
Inland crags - Climbers have raised a specific issue in relation to inland crags. These areas represent a significant resource for climbers, often closer to where people live than traditional mountain and coastal sites. They are seen as equivalent in definition terms to coastal cliffs. 
Local access land - some organisations also prioritised improving access to the countryside close to where people live. 

By "Headline"

Principle and timing - The vast majority of organisations wished to see some form of change in the provision of access for the various activities and over the three land types in question.

Management

• A large majority of respondents want to see better positive management of the land types and activities.
• A more effective and extensive rangering service may be required to monitor and enforce new arrangements.
• Respect for local circumstances was needed within a nationally consistent framework. The work of the Local Access Forums will be relevant here. There were uncertainties about how these forums will operate.
• Impacts on other land uses and specifically safeguarding of environmentally sensitive sites were clearly an issue, but were not seen as insurmountable: appropriate management, zoning or closure systems could tackle most potential problems.  

Parameters

• Definitions - some uncertainty and confusion over how land would be clearly identified.
• Minimum sizes for accessible areas of woods and forests were advocated by some.
• Liability - the position on owner/personal liability causes concern. Further clarification on this and on associated safety issues is required.
• Costs - concern from land managing and owning interests regarding the costs of access and who will meet such costs. Concern from local authority/national parks about extra costs of managing new access arrangements.  

By Criteria

Against the government criteria the following points were distilled:

• Extent - the questionnaire process engendered little comment on the extent of access. One respondent did suggest that there was already extensive land available, but it was poorly linked, publicised or managed under the present system. It was suggested that extending access would help make public use of the land more sustainable - potentially relieving pressure/risk from more sensitive or ecologically important sites.
• Quality - It was recognised that much land in the "other" categories is high quality in terms of its potential for enjoyment and for various recreational uses.
• Permanency - this emerged as the overriding factor in favour of a statutory approach. Numerous respondents saw the voluntary approach as preferable in principle. But many, from a cross section of interests, felt it was nevertheless flawed because of possible future revocation even of long term arrangements, and the potential for "wasting" resources on negotiating temporary access.
• Clarity/Certainty - issues of definition will require care. The public are considered to be unsure of the present situation and are likely to remain so unless measures are adopted to address this. It was clear that signs and other information and education would be important elements in an extended system containing "other" land types. As for other access land, any mapping could be problematic because of definitional issues and the shifting nature of land use though inclusion of woods would reduce definitional problems on the wider open country such as heath and down.
• Costs - There was concern amongst all types of respondents that a new system will bring extra costs. They were uneasy about how those costs would be met and whom they would fall upon.
• Enforcement/monitoring - Many respondents saw improved monitoring and enforcement arrangements as fundamental to the success of any access improvements on these land types - but few had yet given thought to the form this should take. When pressed, some saw it as a possible role for the proposed local access forums in conjunction with suitably resourced local authority staff.  

General

The overall findings of the survey elicited an expectedly diverse range of opinion and of the land types, specific areas and activities that people knew about, were mainly concerned with, or were prepared to speak about. "No change" was an option favoured by virtually none of the respondents.

Whichever approach to change was adopted it would have to take account of the full range of views and interests, and of technical issues such as ease of definition and identification of land. Any statutory framework would provide only the foundations on which more detailed local arrangements would need to be built. Targeted positive services like active path management to facilitate access and accommodate it alongside other uses were desirable and would need to be properly resourced.