permissive bridleway

Landowners to be paid to improve access

by 19

What does a post Brexit agriculture policy have to do with mountain biking? Possibly, good things. Or, possibly not. To use that favourite term of politicians ‘the devil is in the detail’.

The Environmental Land Management update sets out how farmers and land managers will be paid for various actions, instead of the payments they received under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) . The new rules aim to incentivise responsible environmental stewardship as well as food production. This includes improved access to the countryside.

The new policy will subsidise the creation of new permissive routes, with different tiers of funding for different types of route. The funding available is quite a bit more than was possible under the CAP funding.

Old scheme payments
New scheme payments

In a change from the existing policy, which also provides incentives for additional access, the new policy will also support ‘upgrading’ – intended to mean the changing of footpath to bridleway status.

Curiously, the rate of payment is the same whether you’re creating a new route, or upgrading an existing one.

There are two options which would attract £158 per 100m:

  1. ‘Provide and maintain new permissive bridleways or cycles paths’, and
  2. ‘Provide and maintain access alongside existing rights of way for cyclists and horse riders’

Given they both attract the same rate, I wondered what is the difference between the two, and contacted DEFRA for clarification, who said:

  • Offer one applies to creating a new permissive route.
  • Offer two applies when turning an existing footpath into a bridleway or cycle path.
  • Offer two has been designed to recognise an ‘upgrade’ where there is already a right to walk but not to ride, so we ‘top up’ this existing right to more users. 
  • This can be alongside an existing right of way (a linear route with a precise definition recorded on official maps) or over any area where the Countryside and Rights of Way Act has deemed there is a right of Open Access (mountain, moor, heath and down, and common land and now the coast). 

I also asked DEFRA: ‘Many historic routes are of a specific character and construction – the weathering and potential rough surface of which may be part of the attraction for many users. Particularly in these circumstances, maintenance needs to be sympathetic and often not the quickest/cheapest fix. How will the new scheme avoid incentivising that sterilisation of trails under the guise of ‘maintenance’, or the pursuit of payments for the lowest possible outlay?’

I did not get a direct answer, but instead was told:

The range of access offers will deliver increased public benefits through added opportunity to engage with the natural environment. As well as offering an inherent benefit enabling people to access our green spaces, in some locations, new permissive access can also be used to help connect into existing permanent rights of way, offering additional value to the public.

The technical annex for the policy states ‘Ahead of this, we will work with farmers, land managers and the wider sector to finalise the details. This will help us ensure the offer helps to maintain a resilient, productive agricultural sector that will deliver our ambitious environmental and climate goals alongside food production.’ I wondered how the outdoor community could engage with this process to ensure the access incentives work to preserve the activities and attractions of the existing rights of way network, and was told:

  • We are currently drafting the detail for delivery of these actions.
  • Our initial discussions have explored how we can work with local organisations, such as parish councils, to help promote and support new permissive access actions. We are continuing to develop these discussions.

On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much incentive to go for the whole new permissive option rather than ‘upgrading’ an existing one. And of course, while ‘upgrading’ may be intended to mean the legal designation ‘upgrading’ from footpath to bridleway, it does rather come with it the associations of sterilisation, hardcore, and other ‘upgrading’ or ‘maintenance’ treatments so often done unsympathetically. As many of us know, there are plenty of footpaths out there that need nothing more than a change of legal designation – the physical presence on the ground is already perfectly adequate for many purposes. And of course this perpetuates the concepts of footpath vs bridleway, and permissive rights vs actual rights. And how long must a permissive route remain in place after the payments have been made? All in all, it seems that some careful consultation, definitions, and processes will be needed to make the new scheme work as intended.

The introduction of accessible routes will be another area that needs careful implementation – it makes no mention of cycling here, but surely such routes could also be useful for cycling – particularly of the family flavour with wobbly young riders who tend to veer off at alarming directions. It would be great to see the countryside made more accessible, but again, such treatments should be appropriate to the setting.

With so much potential to do good – but equally as many potential pitfalls – it seems like an ideal area for Cycling UK to help DEFRA shape the guidance. Sophie Gordon, Cycling UK off-road campaigns officer said:

“On the face of it, this is announcement is good news for off-road riders. Cycling UK, along with the British Horse Society, have lobbied hard behind the scenes to make sure access for our communities is recognised – and this funding confirms we’ve been listened to.

“Is it perfect? No. We wanted to see funding to incentivise new permanent rights of way, not just permissive access.

“It’s also not clear how much funding will be available, but it’s not likely to be a blank cheque for all landowners. Making sure the money is spent where it will bring greatest benefit will be crucial to the scheme’s success.

“There’s plenty to build upon to improve access in England with this news, which Cycling UK will look to take up with future governments.”

Fingers crossed and watch this space.

Join our mailing list to receive Singletrack editorial wisdom directly in your inbox.

Each newsletter is headed up by an exclusive editorial from our team and includes stories and news you don’t want to miss.

Sign up to receive awesome editorial content from Hannah every week.

Check your inbox for our confirmation email and click the link to activate your newsletter.
We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Author Profile Picture
Hannah Dobson

Managing Editor

I came to Singletrack having decided there must be more to life than meetings. I like all bikes, but especially unusual ones. More than bikes, I like what bikes do. I think that they link people and places; that cycling creates a connection between us and our environment; bikes create communities; deliver freedom; bring joy; and improve fitness. They're environmentally friendly and create friendly environments. I try to write about all these things in the hope that others might discover the joy of bikes too.

More posts from Hannah

Viewing 19 posts - 1 through 19 (of 19 total)
  • Landowners to be paid to improve access
  • nickc
    Full Member

    Improving a 100m long path to enable wheelchair users to be able to use it for the princely sum of just over a grand over 5 years doesn’t seem like a massive incentive to me?

    munrobiker
    Free Member

    Surely if you own agricultural land you already have a requirement under the Basic Payment Scheme to maintain rights of way?

    stwhannah
    Full Member

    @nickc it’s still twice as much as before. And there are increased rates for things like farm visits/educational activities and woodland planting, so maybe in combination it gives a bit more of a package that makes sense? 

    kelvin
    Full Member

    Surely if you own agricultural land you already have a requirement under the Basic Payment Scheme to maintain rights of way?

    Yes. This is for permissive paths, not RoW.

    Also… BPS is being progressively reduced/withdrawn in England IIRC, replaced by SFI (which this is part of). Farmers in England will be receiving less money linked to access overall. I’m sure the government would consider this less money better targeted. But ultimately, it’s currently planned to be less money.

    argee
    Full Member

    Also… BPS is being progressively reduced/withdrawn in England IIRC, replaced by SFI (which this is part of). Farmers in England will be receiving less money linked to access overall. I’m sure the government would consider this less money better targeted. But ultimately, it’s currently planned to be less money.

    Yep, BPS is disappearing fast since Brexit, can’t see farmers and owners being happy to do anything with RoWs in the future with no benefits to them, which is a much bigger issue than some permissive paths.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    Money as part of Countryside and Environmental Stewardship schemes fills some of the gaps… but they look like they are structured even more in favour of land owners than farmers compared to the pre-Brexit schemes. Anyway, it’s all about paying farmers less while being able to point at increased payments for a few things for those willing to open up access a little bit more on a voluntary basis. I’d rather support farmers better and make access a right not something to beg and bribe for… and then top up for trail improvement and maintenance for all paths based on their use… whatever their status… RoW, permissive, historical, new, desire paths, linking trails, routes to schools, tech downhill, walk around the mill ponds, taking in the apple orchards in bloom from your wheelchair… whatever… prove the use and upkeep and receive additional payment.

    fahzure
    Full Member

    Probably mostly goes to existing infrastructure needing little or no improvement. However, if these routes are publicized and popularized, it will be very hard politically/socially to remove access after it has been established.

    Gribs
    Full Member

    I’m very cynical about this considering the tax breaks available for “improving” access and how they’ve been claimed on the Devonshire estate.

    matt_outandabout
    Full Member

    I am all for paying landowners and farmers to make land more productive for food, environmental services/green infrastructure/climate adaptation, social benefit and increased biodiversity. Land is a valuable commodity and should be seen as such – and not just for one use/benefit.

    How this change to payments works out in reality of that aim I have no idea.

    jris
    Full Member

    How is this going to get access to the miles of disused railway tracks around the country?

    Will Network rail start to open up the tracks. If it owns them, or do the farmers own them?

    Olly
    Free Member

    Will Network rail start to open up the tracks. If it owns them, or do the farmers own them?

    I always pressumed they were abandoned and then just claimed by the neighbouring land owner.

    Back when i use to cycle 15 miles to work as a kid, it was a convolouted route through back lanes, up hill and down valley to avoid the main road, but all along the route you could see a dead level twin avenue of trees that went all the way from my village, into town, that was an old rail line. Totally abandoned, and the hedges and fences now crossing over it to define field boundaries. I always though it wouldnt take too much to open that up to gravel type bikes (no need to tarmac it really, if its for leisure use or commuting on sensible bikes) and it would be a fantasticly fast way of getting between Telford and Shrewsbury.

    Greybeard
    Free Member

    The range of access offers will deliver increased public benefits through added opportunity to engage with the natural environment. As well as offering an inherent benefit enabling people to access our green spaces, in some locations, new permissive access can also be used to help connect into existing permanent rights of way, offering additional value to the public.

    The Government must run courses in writing meaningless non-answers like this. The phrasing is instantly familiar.

    MrAgreeable
    Full Member

    I think the ballpark cost for a new machine-built mountain bike trail a few years back was £25 a metre, this pays £1.58 per year. This is welcome but I’d question how many new trails we’re likely to get out of it – it’s far more likely to be used for maintenance/upgrades than creating new routes. 

    MrAgreeable
    Full Member

    How is this going to get access to the miles of disused railway tracks around the country?

    Local authorities already have the power to dedicate new cycle tracks (as distinct from bridleway and byways) and turning old railways into cycle routes is a large part of what Sustrans have been doing for the past 40-odd years. The issues with creating new routes are generally land ownership (e.g. if bits of the track bed have already been sold off) and liability for structures like bridges and tunnels.

    kelvin
    Full Member

    Two separate things…

    * access… just let us ride those routes.

    * infrastructure… rebuilding/securing bridges, putting down and up keep of surfaces, usable gates etc.

    The first could just happen with changes to the law. The second needs a proper financial scheme in place. This isn’t that.

    chrismac
    Full Member

    Just another way to transfer taxpayers money to rich landowners. How much with charley and the church get for this without doing anything

    wzzzz
    Free Member

    Network Rail own the land beneath disused tracks. They are one of the biggest landowners in the country, just its all in thin strips.

    They come out and inspect any old bridges / subways every now and then.

    Farmers/ owners of the adjacent land will just do whatever makes their life easier re fences and gates, but its unlikely they own the bit beneath the old track

    robertajobb
    Full Member

    “…maintenance needs to be sympathetic and often not the quickest/cheapest fix.”

    Can someone tell this to Derbyshire County Council ?

    Because some of us think road planings or broken up shiiite from building sites is not a sympathetic or appropriate material to us on Gritstone or Limestone paths and tracks. Whereas DCC do.

     

     

    bikesandboots
    Full Member

    Could be attractive to designate field access tracks as permissive footpaths/bridleways. The track and gates are already there. Not much use to the public if it’s a dead end at the field gate though, could well be a way of getting taxpayers’ money for providing useless rights of way unless there’s some usefulness criteria.

Viewing 19 posts - 1 through 19 (of 19 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.