Natural England

Managing access to open countryside: a discussion paper for the National Countryside Access Forum (NCAF 3/2)

Introduction

A. 1. Public use of open countryside will be subject to a number of universal conditions - for instance, it will be limited to use on foot. The Government's proposals anticipated that there will be some circumstances when additional time or area limited constraint may also be allowable or necessary. This paper describes those circumstances and the mechanisms that might be available to constrain or manage access. It has been produced as an aid to discussion by the National Countryside Access Forum rather than as a set of definitive proposals.

B. 2. Rather than consider a 'closure regime' in isolation, we thought that it would be more productive to look at the range of mechanisms that are available for managing access in different circumstances. Annex 1 lists these (from least to most restrictive). These mechanisms are not always mutually exclusive.

C. 3. Constraints will work most effectively when they are respected by those affected by them. To gain widespread respect, we suggest that any additional constraint on area wide access must be fair, simple to understand (and administer) and widely known. These essential characteristics are mutually reinforcing. For example, constraints which are for a clear purpose, are relevant and proportionate to that purpose, are easy to understand and well publicised are likely to be respected, and therefore relatively straightforward to administer.

	We would welcome advice on whether there are any other general principles that the Forum think should underpin the system of special constraints that will be needed.

Provision for special constraints 

4. The Government's Framework Document suggests that closure or other restrictions on use might be allowable or necessary in a number of circumstances. Our interpretation of this is that:

i. landowners will have discretion to close or restrict access to their land, without permission, for any purpose for up to 12 days annually;

ii. landowners may close or restrict access to their land for management reasons such as heather burning or shooting, without permission, for up to a further 16 days per annum; (nb we assume that closures or other restrictions allowed under i. and ii. will be subject to a requirement to give prior notification to the appropriate authority, and a proviso that access would not be unreasonably restricted at peak times);

iii. The Countryside Agency, Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) and National Park Authorities (NPA) will be able to approve closures or restrictions for 'sound land management reasons' (Advice to landowners and others will give guidance on the circumstances under which and purposes for which these powers would be exercised);

iv. The Countryside Agency, CCW and NPA's will be able to approve closures or restrictions where they are needed to protect nature conservation or other heritage qualities or where there is a risk to public health or safety. (We assume that action on these grounds would be triggered by a request from the appropriate authority, and only actioned after consultation with the appropriate Local Countryside Access Forum);

v. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) would continue to have a power to close or restrict access to land for military purposes. (We are considering proposing that MOD should consult with the Countryside Agency/CCW/ NPA on the general exercise of these powers).

	We would welcome views about whether these provisions adequately cover all reasonable grounds for special restriction of access.

Selecting the least restrictive option

i. 5. In managing access to open countryside, it will be important to develop mechanisms which will allow for people to visit access land, whilst: 

i. allowing other uses of the land to continue; 

ii. protecting natural, cultural and historic features; and, 

iii. ensuring public safety. 

ii. 6. We assume that the responsible authorities will want to identify the 'least restrictive option' that is consistent with the aims set out above. Examples of a range of measures are given in Annex 1 of this paper, together with some suggestions of circumstances under which they might be appropriate.

	We would welcome views on whether the general approach of identifying a range of possible measures seems sensible to Forum members, and whether the relationship between each approach and the circumstances of its use seems reasonable.

Monitoring

iii. 7. There would need to be some way of monitoring and reviewing the effectiveness of the operation of closure and other restriction procedures, including the extent and nature of their application in different places and circumstances. We are considering whether the Countryside Agency should publish an annual summary of the extent and nature of special constraints on area wide access (as part of an annual report on the effectiveness of provision and management as a whole). We would welcome your views on this. Communication iv. 8. To be effective, special constraints on access must be known about by prospective users. The means of communication that is likely to be most effective depends on a number of factors like: i. the particular purpose of the constraint on use, ii. the nature of the constraint (for instance, its duration), and iii. the target audience. Annex 2 presents some means of communication, and identifies some of their strengths and weaknesses for this purpose. It seems likely that it will be most effective if a number of these means are used, bearing in mind their particular characteristics.

	We would welcome your views on this.

Communication

iv. 8. To be effective, special constraints on access must be known about by prospective users. The means of communication that is likely to be most effective depends on a number of factors like: 

i. the particular purpose of the constraint on use,

ii. the nature of the constraint (for instance, its duration), and 

iii. the target audience. 

Annex 2 presents some means of communication, and identifies some of their strengths and weaknesses for this purpose. It seems likely that it will be most effective if a number of these means are used, bearing in mind their particular characteristics.

	We would welcome your views on this analysis, and any additional means of communication that might be effective.

Enforcement

v. 9. The best way of ensuring compliance with special constraints on access is: 

i. to gain user respect for the need and means of achieving it, and ii. to make sure that information about the measure is easily available. 

vi. 10. There will also need to be effective backstop powers to deter, and ultimately to punish those who deliberately ignore reasonable and properly implemented constraints on use (just as there will need to be sanctions against those who purposefully obstruct, mislead or deter reasonable access).

	We would welcome views on the nature of the powers that might be provided, to whom they might be available, and the circumstances in which they might be used. In considering this, we should bear in mind that the enforcement and exercise of sanction should always be considered to be a last resort, and, to some extent, would be a symptom of failure of the more desirable approach of persuasion and education that will be employed.

Annex 1. Selecting the least restrictive option 
For any given site the aim should be to identify the least restrictive option that is consistent with other uses of the land. This table illustrates a progressively more restrictive scale of measures that could help to arrive at this judgement. Some of these might be used in combination. 

Annex 2. Communication of special constraints on access