'Right to Roam' legislation for Wales.

Complete dicks will be complete dicks anyway. People still break fences, leave gates open, scare sheep etc. They will still be legislated against, but of course that’s next to impossible to police, as now.

I can’t see a downside to this, really. I think there’s very little that’s worth riding or walking on that will become open, as far as I can tell.

Will this open up the wales coast path for official riding??

I think there’s very little that’s worth riding or walking on that will become open, as far as I can tell.

It’s a bit different in North Wales. While we do well for trail centres and purpose-developed trails, we’re thin on the ground for legitimate BW. In time this change should make a significant difference, possibly pulling people away from the Llanberis/Betws honeypots and away to other areas that would benefit from mtb tourism and broader recognition for being ‘outdoorsy’ places. Excellent news 😀

I should clarify.. I meant there is little that will become open that is currently private. The opening of FPs to bikes will be fantastic, and be the highest thing for us.

I hope it also legalises rough camping.

I am still quite skeptical about the whole thing. is it actually going to happen or is it a soundbite from an AM to p1ss off Parliament?

Given the official statement:

“The Minister for Culture and Sport will not be launching open access legislation next week. The Minister is reviewing the current framework for outdoor recreation and access and will make a statement on this later in the year”

It doesn’t mean anything. I review a lot of things, and then decide changes aren’t viable.

highclimber – Member

There is already plenty of open access land that is SSSI etc so I don’t think it raises anything particularly new there.

Not wishing to go down the line of “hooves / tyres cause more damage than boots”, but cycling on SSSI’s is a specific offence (presumably for a good reason), so this would need addressing especially at choke-points. I have real problems on a SSSI adjacent to a particular forest-based MTB centre BTW, the “cheeky” route of which crops up here every other time its mentioned. Like I said though, it’s a (not particularly major) sticking point, which I think certain groups would focus fighting this proposal on.

In addition, there are behind the scenes provisions to restrict access on OA land for particularly rare species. A bit like a super-injunction, if it became knowledge that area X is restricted for species Y people go “ooh, species Y lives here, lets find some!” 🙂

molgrips – Member

Would any be required? I can’t imagine anyone would ask for anything more than to not be a criminal. I’ll cross fences and whatnot my own way, and I’ll accept responsibility if I break it.

I’d also happily accept restrictions for SSSIs in return for everything else.

I wonder if this will include wild camping too?

It would definitely require increasing accessibility – you can’t realistically say “OK, you can now lawfully get onto and around a particular parcel of access land which previously was physically inaccessable to you”. It could be argued that some people are perfectly happy to lift bikes over stiles, but as I interpret the article, it includes horses too. It would be easier to simply replace every current stile onto access land with a bridlegate and keep everything exactly the same.

With the best will in the world, you can’t let people climb over privately-owned fences or walls and rely on the honesty of whoever broke it to fix it / pay for it. It would need stating in any Act that, like the 3 or so years before CROW came into force, that the local authority would survey all Access land boundaries and identify suitable new access points (e.g. if OA land didn’t link with a RoW) so hopefully people can get onto access land easily and safely. Any possibility of additional damage to property would have to be legislated for, as exists under CROW, but there would be added user pressure from bikes / horses

The way I interpreted the article is that they would insert the words “and on horseback and pedal cycle” after the bit in the CROW act where it says along the lines of “access on foot” meaning where you could previously walk where you want, you can walk and ride where you want.

Linear PROW’s will stay as they are, but unless addressed, cycling on a footpath would still be a civil offense leaving the bizarre position of saying “yes you can now ride all over this mountain on a bike, BUT you can’t use that stile / gate to get on it as it’s a footpath”. Wild camping is mentioned in the article as to be included.

epicyclo – Member

ahwiles – Member
my understanding of it is: you can pretty go where you want, as long as you’re not a dick about it.

The beauty is this works far better than a load of restrictive legislation.

Unfortunately that’s why we have laws, you have to legislate for dicks – a whole bunch of them.

Not sure if this would include the WCP as I don’t know anything about it. IF it goes ahead at all that is 😐 I must admit to being fairly skeptical too, there are lots of pretty powerful landowners who would fight this – wrongly IMO (privately and professionally) but I’m wrong all the time, so I don’t really know. Certainly, I haven’t heard of this before and I’m normally ‘in the know’ as such.

schnor – come up to Scotland some time. The problems and issues that you mention simply don’t exist. It could well be argued that is because pressure on land use is less but you really are over-complicating things.

It will hopefully provide yet more examples of “Oh look, and its all fine” and England will eventually, finally change their access laws. But not anytime soon I suspect.

😆 😆 😆 😆

Most of the landowners round here would sooner eat their children than allow any further access to their land. Negotiating access for an annual fell race often seems harder than resolving the Arab Israeli conflict.

Hope this goes through, good work the Taffs.

I doubt this will get anywhere. There has been no consultation that I am aware of. Landowner’s had the oppotunity to challenge CROW Act designation based on what that act was providing. To now move the goalposts without appeal or at least consultation would go down like a lead balloon.

Most of the landowners round here would sooner eat their children than allow any further access to their land. Negotiating access for an annual fell race often seems harder than resolving the Arab Israeli conflict.

Interestingly I just posted this on FB and a friend who is a sheep farmer came back very negatively, her experiences are from A – Walkers and B – just people stopped the car and having BBQs/picnics/cider and crisps in her fields etc. I suspect the major concern from the latter being the shit they leave behind. I know she doesn’t have a particular gripe against mtbers, but the access to land as it is causes her serious headaches and worries for her stock and on that basis she doesn’t want to see it extended, full stop. Much better education about not being a cock on other peoples land needed regardless. I don’t believe extension of R2R for England is the best idea, but relaxation of footpath restrictions based on pre-existing ROW seems a good compromise.

scotroutes, I have a quarter of a million people living in and beyond 25 miles of the boundary of my ‘patch’. Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester are also 1-2 hours drive away. I can assure you these problems exist because I deal with them every day. I love Scotland because it’s so “free”, for want of a better word.

If it looks over-complicated its because it genuinely is; the reality is that in play are at least half a dozen Acts all interconnected in ways that are still surprising me after so many years. To the average walker / rider / whoever they see stiles and gates and think it’s simple.

Opening up OA land to horses and bikes is achievable, I’m just giving examples / opinions (in too much detail TBH) on what the potential problems could be – the very same sort of problems I encountered when CROW started.

scotroutes – Member
schnor – come up to Scotland some time. The problems and issues that you mention simply don’t exist…

+1

Amazing what difference a bit of freedom makes.

Their are gates, fences, walls, stiles, people and livestock in Scotland and the simple right to roam on uncultivated land works. Right to roam does not require the landowner make land open to the public for all forms of leisure. So no need to add more legislation. A landowner cannot deliberatley block access to uncultivated land however. The Scottish system could be adopted here in days without extensive legal waste if so desired. A working forest or land with crops is not open land subject to right to roam.

The system in Scotland works well, is simple to understand and greatly opens up access to the countryside. I am sure that a similar setup in Wales will be good. I feel that a direct comparison cannot be drawn to what may be required in England. There are vastly greater numbers of people within close proximity to areas of countryside. These challenges to be overcome are also apparent near some of Scotlands population centres, mainly Loch Lomondside or The Trossachs.

It would definitely require increasing accessibility – you can’t realistically say “OK, you can now lawfully get onto and around a particular parcel of access land which previously was physically inaccessable to you”.

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.

As for the picnics and litter – you’re not allowed to do that now. This legislation would not change anything. It would just mean that you couldn’t be herded off a field if you were simply walking or riding on it. If you leave litter all over the place you could still be prosecuted as you are now. Just one fewer offence.

The offence of simply being somewhere would disappear.. which is good imo. I suspect if this ever comes into being they would have to trade something for it. Like countryside rangers or something.

It can work anywhere, you just have to accept that just because you are allowed access it doesn’t mean that you can physically walk/ride across a route.

I live in Scotland and many routes on maps just don’t exist on the ground, and when a route passes a field boundary it also doesn’t automatically mean that there’ll be a gate/stile.

Wales is like Scotland in a lot of ways, most of the population live in small areas and then there are the vast areas of almost zero-occupied land.

b r – Member
…I live in Scotland and many routes on maps just don’t exist on the ground, and when a route passes a field boundary it also doesn’t automatically mean that there’ll be a gate/stile….

Which is why you need to have a bike light enough to lift over a deer fence. 🙂

Which is why you need to have a bike light enough to lift over a deer fence.

Ti HT, so yes 🙂

Good news for Wales although reading the update it sounds like it won’t be happening. Scotland will always have the best riding in the UK either way. There is just so much variety

Enter the naif 🙂

I have never truly understood what the equivalent right to roam would mean in England. Would it basically mean that access land open (to walkers) under CRoW becomes access land to cyclists and horse riders too?

If so, that still leaves a high proportion of countryside out of bounds. Having a quick look at my White Peak OS map there’s still plenty of land that isn’t access land covered by the CroW act at all. Introducing “right to roam” does not mean we can ride on all footpaths, it simply means we can ride anywhere – which may include footpaths – within access land. The “ride anywhere” mentality would simply be inappropriate in England, where most of us I suspect are surrounded by cultivated, working land that is not access land. I’d be interested to know what percentage of countryside in England is in fact designated access land (I’ll look into that unless someone can save me the bother).

Is that an accurate summary or have I missed the point completely?

Not knocking it though; I can think of some peachy trails through access land not very far from me that I would LOVE to ride “legally”.

The latter. There is no concept of “access land” in the Scottish system.

I heard (on Farming Today yesterday) that more than 50% of private land in Scotland is owned by 432 people.

I suspect that, whilst an unparalleled concentration of ownership anywhere in the world, this aided negotiations and consultations on introduction of the legislation as they could all fit in a large village hall and have a chat about it?

scotroutes, I wasn’t asking with regard to Scotland. I was asking with regard to England. However, your comment that there us no concept of “access land” in Scotland means there is little valid comparison of right to roam in Scotland to England.

what other mountains in wales would become open to us?

schnor – Member

It would definitely require increasing accessibility – you can’t realistically say “OK, you can now lawfully get onto and around a particular parcel of access land which previously was physically inaccessable to you”.

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.

The “ride anywhere” mentality would simply be inappropriate in England, where most of us I suspect are surrounded by cultivated, working land that is not access land.

The general idea is that you can go ANYHWERE you like, not just on designated open access land. However, as I understand it, you CAN’T go on cultivated land. So the fact that England has lots of cultivated land makes no difference.

whereas on BW’s there’d be an expectation that it was actualy passable by bike/horse.

numerous BWs are seriously hardwork on a bike nevermond horse.

Much better education about not being a cock on other peoples land needed regardless

it’s a sad state of affairs where the major population needs special public information ad’s saying “don’t be a dick” (see also road use education) but the amount of crap I see dumped in the country side, out of car windows or at a nice picnic/bbq/piss up spot 5mins walk from a carpark shows that yes it might be necessary

I think we’re comparing apples and oranges. Scotroutes states there is no such thing as “Access Land” in Scotland and sure enough my OS map of Ben Nevis has no such thing on the legend. England very much does have “Access Land” and this is the land made available for open access (by foot) as part of the CRoW act.

Extending the right to roam to bicycles will presumably only apply to Access Land in England. Having checked my OS map of the Clwydian Range, it too lists “Access Land” on the legend as land – with boundaries – that provides open access by foot.

The conclusion I draw from all of this is that ALL of Scotland is essentially “Access Land” whereas England and Wales only have pockets of “Access Land”. Extending the “right to roam” to cyclists only does so within those Access Land boundaries. The Holy Grail of having Scottish access rights in Wales is still a long way off.

stilltortoise – Member

The “ride anywhere” mentality would simply be inappropriate in England, where most of us I suspect are surrounded by cultivated, working land that is not access land.

Leaving aside “access land”- which is a restriction that stops applying in an open access model- why do you think this is any different from Scotland?

Sure we have more areas of open and relatively undeveloped country but most people live in the cities and the land around the cities is just as intensively farmed as anywhere in England. It’s not all mountains and lochs you know 😉 Every ride I do from my house is almost entirely in arable or grazing land.

Whenever “right to roam” is discussed there is a lot of assumption that we’re talking the same level of access as you have in Scotland. I’m trying to establish if that is the case and to do so I can’t simply ignore the issue of “Access Land” since that is absolutely central to “right to roam” as far as I’ve always understood.

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.

[EDIT – I’m sure the answer is available for me to find out, I just wondered/hoped if someone could clear it up for me hence my earlier question]

[DOUBLE EDIT] – read the OPs original link again and still think it is vague and doesn’t explicitly answer my question above. More links anyone?]

cloudnine – Member
Will this open up the wales coast path for official riding??

I grew up on Anglesey which is very poorly served by BWs but has some stunning natural coastal singletrack (apparently :wink:). Pembrokeshire is in a similar situation.

If coastal access is opened to bikes then quite apart from opening up additional hill routes it will also open up large parts of the country which are not seen as “mountain biking areas” to the sport… but obviously at the risk of conflict with walkers if not dealt with sensibly.

I’m also thinking of Gower – some good BWs there already, but the potential to link it up with the coast path could lead to some great routes.

It said ‘Scottish style legislation’ didn’t it?

Which to me means it’d be like Scotland.

It said ‘Scottish style legislation’ didn’t it?

Which to me means it’d be like Scotland

It’s nothing more than a soundbite which, in practice, could mean one of many interpretations.

“Scottish style”

“like Scotland”

Just after a *touch* more detail than this 😉

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.

I’ve done a few basic searches but cant find any new info on this subject. is the wales right to roam still under discussion please?

I had a meeting with NRW last week and asked one of the two main Access guys about this (sorry, forgot to update the thread). Apparently the new Head of Department ‘misspoke’, the first he heard about it was via google email alert when he was on holiday, which caused him some surprise.

The statement was quietly withdrawn because NRW are in the middle of the 10 year access land review. As appeals are currently being held, it was decided not to change the objectives part way through the process due to “reputational risk”, I think the term was.

I asked when the review is concluded if CROW would be amended to include access on bike and horse (as per my above post), but they didn’t know 🙁

[edit]

it was suggested there was work behind the scenes on access to waterways though, but the trial project didn’t go very well apparently, although I can’t really go into more details as it was on the QT

ok, thanks for info. appreciate it.

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.

Is that true? I thought they just said if a building meets X, Y and Z criteria then you can’t smoke in it.

There was no legal requirement for anyone to build smoking shelters was there?

Don’t think so, many of the existing shelters at my place had to have walls removed to comply with the legislation.