The review of National Parks policy and powers led by Guardian journo Julian Glover has popped out a report:
Lots of content, but the most widely-reported suggestion is to increase enforcement powers to NPs and potentially its employees to deal with 'anti-social behaviour' via 'ASBOs' and fixed penalty tickets. Also looks like 4x4ing in honeypot areas could be on the target list.
Be interesting to see if any of the proposals get adopted, and if so, how they get applied on the ground (I generally assume that new enforcement powers will be applied well beyond tackling the original issue.)
Managing visitor pressures
Since the review was published, rangers in protected landscapes have observed increased visitor numbers and an increase in anti-social and hostile behaviour. In response, Natural England has revised the Countryside Code, and run a communications campaign to improve people’s understanding of the countryside and promote socially and environmentally responsible behaviours. However, providing visitors with clearer information has not been sufficient to fully address these ongoing issues.We are therefore considering making a greater range of enforcement powers available to National Park Authorities and the Broads Authority to help manage visitor pressures and make National Parks a more pleasant and safe place to live and visit. These are powers to:
issue Fixed Penalty Notices for byelaw infringements - this would simplify the process and reduce enforcement costs. Increasing the penalties would also act as a stronger deterrent and provide reassurance to local communities
make Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) – this would reduce administration costs where multiple local authorities have jurisdiction across a National Park and ensure there is a consistent approach where PSPOs are deemed necessary to deter genuinely antisocial behaviour. This would only be used following consultation with LAs
issue Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) to control the amount and type of traffic on roads – this would help to tackle and deter problems caused by vehicles that could lead to damage to sensitive environments or wildlife and allow National Park Authorities to respond more quickly to emerging traffic issues
Some country public rights of way and unsealed unclassified roads known as ‘green lanes’ allow for the legal recreational use of motor vehicles. Whilst many users make use of these rights in a responsible way, we have become increasingly aware of damage and disturbance caused by excessive use of off-road motor vehicles on some unsealed routes. This can result in impacts on local wildlife, the special qualities of an area e.g., tranquillity, and make the route less accessible for other users such as those on foot, bicycles, horseback, or in vehicles used by disabled people. In protected landscapes, these impacts could undermine the statutory purposes of the area.We are also aware that these unsealed routes often provide essential vehicular access for local residents and businesses, and recognise that many people enjoy using motor vehicles responsibly on green lanes without causing damage or disturbance. Vulnerable groups such as disabled or elderly people are also likely to be particularly reliant on vehicular access in rural areas including via community transport.
We therefore would like to explore the options available for protecting our green lanes while maintaining most public and private access rights, particularly for residents or businesses. This could be achieved by giving greater discretion for National Park Authorities and local highway authorities to use existing powers to restrict use on a case-by-case basis. Alternatively, the government could consider restricting the use of certain motor vehicles on unsealed roads through legislation, but only if this could carefully balance the needs of all users including motorised vehicle users, horse riders, cyclists and walkers, whilst also protecting private access rights.
New Forest NP have only issued a 1 year licence for cycle access this last year (usually 4 years i think), to be reviewed on the grounds that the FC demonstrate they are clamping down on off-piste cycling.
Effectively paving the way for a private anti-cycling police force and option to ban cycling completely in the New Forest (again).
Unfortunately the official cycle 'network ' isno such thing, and can only be linked by cycling off-piste 🙄
Lots of NP Rangers are retired volunteers, good at directing people, offering assistance, counting visitor numbers / other assessments, collecting evidence but I can’t imagine many have the stomach for confronting the honeypot BBQ ASBO crew. And why should they?
Sounds like a a set of ideas from people who will never be on the frontline trying to implement them
Seems like ‘dog whistle’ conservation to me, and probably a retrograde step. If too many people are visiting and putting pressure on particular areas I’m not sure how this helps.
All the proposed solutions are in place elsewhere in the country. They are invariably poorly implemented and not subject to due process through the courts. That's a hard NO from me.
Policing by consent is not cheap and we ALL need to fund it for the good of the country with more trained police officers not rangers that are not properly vetted before being given the power to criminalise people.
Hmm you should witness the abuse we get for just asking dog owners to put their dogs on a lead in a well signed protected area!
Will have to have a good read of this.
Oh dear oh dear oh dear
Seems like rather spiteful anti vehicle stuff, possibly as in the peaks the anti vehicle lot lost a few attempts to get vehicle access removed.
why would you use the term green lane (*as it’s not defined in law), but to be fair it sounds much nicer and more emotive than BOAT (or byway open to all traffic which is the only type of right of way that vehicles are allowed to use).
FYI
https://www.bhs.org.uk/our-work/access/england-and-wales (*im using this as it seems about right to me and it’s clearly presented)
“In England, the public rights of way network amounts to 188,700km, consisting of 146,600km of footpaths, 32,400km of bridleways, 3,700km of byways and 6,000km of restricted byways. Horse riders, therefore, currently only have access to 22 percent of public rights of way and horse-drawn vehicle drivers only five percent.
The length of the public right of way network in Wales currently amounts to 33,211km, consisting of 26,320km of footpaths, 4,965km of bridleways, 431km of byways and 1,495km of restricted byways. Horse riders therefore, currently have access to only 21 percent of public rights of way and horse-drawn vehicle drivers to only six percent.”
So what they’re really saying is that in England vehicle users have legal access to 3700km out of a total amount of 188,700km of rights of way and that’s too much and they need to do something about it.
Or even more cynically
Well as the currently existing TRO legislation isn’t always doing what we want what we should do is get it adapted for our use so we can get our own way.
(*traffic regulation order, allows councils to either close a public right of way or to limit what type of user (vehicle, bicycle, horse etc) that can use a public right of way - e.g stop vehicles using a boat, it makes it a criminal offence, so you can get the police to deal with it, however currently it’s done in the public domain, it is possible to raise objections and (*hopefully) a balanced viewpoint based on a variety of viewpoints is made)
Policing by consent is not cheap and we ALL need to fund it for the good of the country with more trained police officers
A thousand times this, for this issue, traffic enforcement, general ASB, and frankly all the other crime we have.
There was a recent consultation for Dartmoor where the Park authority tried a massive landowner backed restriction on access rights, despite being able to deal with all the problems they had during lockdown with the powers they already had and failed to use.
it’s still under review, but I would expect it to be pushed through despite the many objections.
On the basis that the only dealings either I or the missus have had with Peak Park Rangers is when they've tried to tear us (separate incidents) a new one for riding a bike on a bridleway (Stanage Plantation), with no hint of an apology when it was pointed out that it wasn't the footpath they assumed it was - both on the OS map and by the all the signage that said "bridleway" on it, I'd want to see a heavy (and therefor expensive) degree of up-skilling before they were allowed out with "real" power.
I agree there's a lot of anti-social behaviour in the countryside at the moment- shit parking, casual littering and commercial fly tipping, anti social use of 4x4s and MX bikes (inc carving big wallowy bogs on virgin moorland), about which "something needs to be done" - but equally, as a devotee of "cheeky trails" and footpath riding (when appropriate), we need to be careful what we wish for...
Policing by consent is not cheap and we ALL need to fund it for the good of the country with more trained police officers not rangers that are not properly vetted before being given the power to criminalise people
This^^
So what they’re really saying is that in England vehicle users have legal access to 3700km out of a total amount of 188,700km of rights of way and that’s too much and they need to do something about it.
No they are saying some people are getting upset be they landowners or NIMBY retirees recently moved into the area or others
I agree there’s a lot of anti-social behaviour in the countryside at the moment-
Has been for years, just a Covid upswing atm
but equally, as a devotee of “cheeky trails” and footpath riding (when appropriate),
You believe that higher rights exist on the PRoW and will continue to exercise them until settled at a public inquiry
If not a PRoW then you believe a bridleway or BOAT exists and will continue to exercise this access until settled at a public inquiry
You have to watch those NIMBY retirees - they have a lot of time on their hands and a real lack of perspective.