These are your countryside rights of way in lockdown – Paul A Sherwood

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 20 years ago did little to resolve a lot of these issues and it wasn’t helped by the popular but incorrect term “Right to Roam”. In fact the Act brought about more access restrictions which were legally imposed.

There is no ‘right’ to wander about anywhere other than designated ‘Open Access’ areas and these designated areas can be closed to suit land usage, nesting season, fire risk or those two thorny subjects – shooting and moorland burning.

Everywhere else access is limited to Public Rights of Way, footpaths and bridleways and a multitude of more convoluted ancient designations which are complex even to legal experts.

Two months ago, general wide-ranging restrictions were imposed on all of us with the exception of “exercise”.

But due to poorly worded Government advice and legislation, and to the poor interpretation of the law by police throughout the country, exercise, especially walking in the countryside, became problematic.

It became a ‘free for all’ with opposing opinions and much self-assessment of the actual restrictions.

We all seem to accept the notion of social distancing, although that now has been brought into question, but common sense should have been allowed to prevail, without residents of villages erecting offensive signage on public rights of way.

Or in a few cases locking and obstructing public rights of way, which is an offence under Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980.

Neither the Government nor the 
local highway authorities closed any public rights of way during these restrictions.

Leeds City Council produced “Advice for Landowners and Farmers with Public Rights of Way” which was correctly worded and explicit.

And the Defence Estates (Ministry of Defence) put up well worded and correct information on public rights of way around Catterick and undoubtedly other military areas. Other than these examples confusion has reigned.

Some landowners where rights of way are adjacent to property have put up polite signs suggesting people do not use the particular route, others with permissive (agreed but not legal) paths have closed them but clearly signed that it is only a temporary measure. These are both sensible and acceptable measures.

Contrast this with signage on a public footbridge stating: “If you do not live in Thornton-le-Street then you should not be walking through here at all…this is our home and not for you to blatantly ignore the rules we will now report anyone to the police.”

Similar signs have been seen elsewhere. Public rights of way are open irrespective of this particular resident’s opinions and, in this case, North Yorkshire Police could do little other than waste their resources.

These instances antagonise genuine walkers. Likewise, casual walkers taking their exercise are flagrantly unaware of rights of way, are leaving gates open, wandering anywhere and have dogs running free at lambing time. These are antagonising to landowners.

Somehow, we need a compromise, these restrictions may remain with us for the foreseeable future.

Back in the last great plague almost 20 years ago – foot and mouth – it became apparent in rural areas that it is indeed tourism that feeds the local economy, not agriculture.

This recent scenario has shown that genuine walkers (and cyclists) do have an actual interest in a rural way of life, they generally use public rights of way correctly and act sensibly.

On the plus side, nesting birds and wildlife generally have had a trouble-free spring in the very popular areas and over used footpaths have had chance to recover in places like the Lake District.

The current spate of casual visitors to the countryside with their inconsiderate mass return to the coast and National Parks, together with their associated litter (now including rubber gloves!) and dog excrement left hanging on hedges in plastic bags, is not what is needed if we hope to return to a friendly co-existence.

Paul A Sherwood is chair of the North Yorkshire County Council Local Access Forum.

Editor’s note: first and foremost - and rarely have I written down these words with more sincerity - I hope this finds you well.

Almost certainly you are here because you value the quality and the integrity of the journalism produced by The Yorkshire Post’s journalists - almost all of which live alongside you in Yorkshire, spending the wages they earn with Yorkshire businesses - who last year took this title to the industry watchdog’s Most Trusted Newspaper in Britain accolade.

And that is why I must make an urgent request of you: as advertising revenue declines, your support becomes evermore crucial to the maintenance of the journalistic standards expected of The Yorkshire Post. If you can, safely, please buy a paper or take up a subscription. We want to continue to make you proud of Yorkshire’s National Newspaper but we are going to need your help.

Postal subscription copies can be ordered by calling 0330 4030066 or by emailing [email protected]. Vouchers, to be exchanged at retail sales outlets - our newsagents need you, too - can be subscribed to by contacting subscriptions on 0330 1235950 or by visiting www.localsubsplus.co.uk where you should select The Yorkshire Post from the list of titles available.

If you want to help right now, download our tablet app from the App / Play Stores. Every contribution you make helps to provide this county with the best regional journalism in the country.

Sincerely. Thank you.

James Mitchinson