molgrips - Member
Yes, you can. Removing the prohibition on something doesn't mean you must put facilities in for them to do it. It's legal to ride your bike to work, for instance, you employer isn't compelled to put bike sheds and showers in.
But you're not just removing the prohibition, the proposal is to legalise and actively encourage people to do something. How would you expect, for example, horse riders to ride on a piece of moorland if it was surrounded by stone walls and a few stiles? Would you congratulate them on the new law and then shug your shoulders when they point out, reasonably, that they can't actually do what the law allows them?
Its for this very reason that there is specific provision in CROW 2000 (Section 35) for opening up access to access land.
Riding to work is purely voluntarily, regardless of it being lawful to ride on a road, so to stretch your analogy even further; if an Act was passed that gave you a lawful entitlement to ride into work (I'm not sure how that would even be possible, but anyway) then yes the Act would also have to make provision for your workplace to - given reasonable limitations - provide adequate facilities for showers / storage / etc.
Exactly like the smoking ban, put simply, when people were banned from smoking indoors there was a provision made for the building of outdoor smoking sheds / etc. Laws are specifically written so you not only allow / disallow something also to make provision for how it is carried out. This is why Acts are so long and complicated.
Northwind - Member
Except that's exactly what you do- and exactly what we did. You're not just imagining problems here, you're telling us that things which have already happened, are impossible. That should tell you something.
I don't follow. So, as simply as I can: -
If this proposal goes ahead in the way I interpret it, if an area of access land as defined by the CROW act is not reasonably accessible by bike / horse then consideration must be given to improve access onto and across the land by bike / horse.
This is exactly what happened with CROW for walkers (Section 35 again), with physical improvements - creating missing links / etc - starting in 2003. If you are saying that there are after 10 years, areas of access land that cant be accessed on foot, then it needs reporting to your Rights of Way / Access team ASAP. This is not a problem with the CROW act, or of my interpretation of CROW possibly being extended to include other users, but of its implementation.
The obvious caveat would be there will be small patches of random moorland / common land here and there in the middle of a bunch of fields / side of cliffs / etc, which would be excluded on the grounds of being too expensive to link to or open up given the size. This would be a matter of judgement for the local PRoW / Access team, whether they are right or wrong, I don't know.
tilltortoise - Member
The direct question is, are Wales thinking of letting cyclists and horse riders on Access Land or are they thinking of letting walkers, cyclists and horse riders have access to more than just Access Land? Two very different things requiring very different approaches.
I will be the former. The reason its confused so many people here is because the article states "enact Scottish-style 'right to roam'", which I can tell you is simply not going to happen (see references to, I think, baby-eating landowners above). They mean scottish-style in the sense that what you can do on foot you can do on a bike / horse, NOT redefining access land to include access to water / farmland / etc.