Landowners to be paid to improve access

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 pol …

By stwhannah

Get the full story here:

Landowners to be paid to improve access

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?

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

@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? 

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Also… BPS is being progressively reduced/withdrawn in England IIRC, replaced by SFI (which this is part of).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.

Also… BPS is being progressively reduced/withdrawn in England IIRC, replaced by SFI (which this is part of).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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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

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

“…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.

 

 

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.