Breadcrumbs
NCAF 6/3 Restriction of use by the public
1. Forum members are invited to:
a. comment on the general structure and approach andb. comment on any of the detail of the draft completed so far.
2. It should be emphasised that this document is very much a first attempt at setting down the 'ground rules' that will make the restriction regime manageable by all concerned. In particular:
a. the paper stops at section 6 ('notifying discretionary
restrictions') simply because this is as far as we have got at
present: and
b. only Annex 1 exists at present;
c. the detail of the paper is very speculative, and is based on a
number of detailed assumptions about the final content of the
primary and secondary legislation that may not turn out to be
correct; and
d. there has been no opportunity yet to discuss this in detail with
all the other agencies or organisations involved - so that the
extent to which a common approach will be possible is not yet
clear.
3. Nevertheless, given the focus on codes of practice, and on moorland management that will be part of the May meeting of the Forum, we thought this was a good opportunity to take an early look at the developing approach to the priniciples and procedures for managing restrictions.
4. Forum members may like to pay particular attention to:
a. The principles outlined in para 14;
b. the proposed role for informal access management described in para 20 to 23;
c. the procedures for notifying so called '28 day' restrictions, and in particular, the concept of retrospective notification in paragraph 30.
5. The approach taken is an attempt to:
a. create something that is as efficient, effective and 'user friendly' as possible, by simplifying what could (easily) become a very complex and cumbersome set of procedures:
b. create procedures for notifying short term and/or very localised '28 day' restrictions that invlove the minimum of bureaucracy, and allow the maximum flexibility for land management, without allowing this to prejudice the general right of the public to have access without unreasonable constraint, to be given reasonable notice where it is withdrawn, to be protected from hazards related to management activities and to be able to find alternative provision.
c. reduce the need for 'additional' closures to a minimum.
6. As with the paper on the (now combined) code of
practice for users and land managers, this paper should be seen in
the context of the 'family' of access documentation that is listed
in Annex one of that paper.
RJR. May 2000