Landowners need to work with walkers

AS a keen walker, I would like to say that I agree wholeheartedly with the comments by Douglas Chalmers about the rights of way and “right to roam” in Britain (Yorkshire Post, February 28).

When the Right to Roam Act was passed in 2000, I felt that it wasn’t really necessary as there are thousands of perfectly good public footpaths in this country without giving people the right to wander willy-nilly in areas that may be sensitive and in need of protection for one reason or other.

The biggest problem, I feel, is with land owners who try to discourage/prevent walkers from using the existing paths, by blocking or removing stiles, planting over or ploughing over footpaths, and grazing bulls in fields which a footpath runs through.

I have on a number of occasions found myself lost because the path has completely disappeared. Most walkers are sensible, reasonable people, and if the landowner/farmer would try to keep the footpaths open and well marked the walkers would be happy to stick to them and not risk damaging crops, etc. I don’t see anything wrong with the occasional detouring of a footpath round the edge of a field or farm buildings, as long as it is well signposted; indeed I always feel uncomfortable when a footpath goes through a farm yard or garden. I realise that some militant purists object to such detours, but they are being as unreasonable as the landowners who block the footpaths.

If only the landowners and walkers could work together on this matter, there is no reason why everyone could not enjoy the benefits of our beautiful countryside.

From: David Nortcliffe, Halifax.

AS someone who spent half his working lifetime in countryside management and access both in local authorities and as a consultant, I was surprised, and frankly appalled, to find that a director with CLA should put forward such a ranting and unbalanced piece about countryside access.

If Douglas Chalmers had stuck to issues regarding delays in getting orders processed and problems of path maintenance, he would have been on firm ground and had support from several quarters.

The answer to both those points is that central and local government have cut budgets and staff for such work right down to the bone, and beyond.

As a result, issues relating to orders now take longer to resolve and paths are getting into worse condition. But to suggest there is no order or logic in the system and also make totally unsupported comments about things being “incomprehensible” and costing “many thousands of pounds” is not helpful and calculated to make relationships worse.

The whole tone of the piece is that the landowners’ problems are not understood and there is no appreciation of their needs. Perhaps that’s at least partly the fault of CLA. Under the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000, Local Access Forums were set up to cover most of the country.

These were to have representatives of all factions involved in “Access” issues and work to resolve problems. In at least one area of my acquaintance, it has proved almost impossible over the past decade to get landowner representatives to join their local Forum with the exception of a three-year period when NFU sent a representative. CLA has been conspicuous by its absence throughout.

Readers may draw their own conclusions.

The Empire strikes back

From: William Snowden, Butterbowl Gardens, Farnley, Leeds.

TOM Richmond (Yorkshire Post, February 25) expressed surprise that “the BBC’s political correctness police” had “approved” Jeremy Paxman’s comments about the British Empire. But why wouldn’t they? Mr Paxman is, after all, a BBC insider, and his statement was not contentious; merely a truism.

Moreover, it was advance publicity for his forthcoming BBC TV series about the British Empire. I suspect that the programme (like the book) will reflect Mr Paxman’s acerbic and provocative style.

The BBC has a predilection to commission historians of a Liberal-Left (a classic oxymoron!) persuasion, like Simon Schama and the ubiquitous Andrew Marr while erudite historians like Andrew Roberts and Niall Ferguson, who represent the traditional school of history, are pointedly ignored.

Niall Ferguson (Harvard Professor of History) is a recognised authority on the history of the British Empire. But his contention that the British Empire had a broadly benign influence would indeed cause apoplexy at the PC BBC!

South is drain on resources

From: Dr Robert Heys, Bar Lane, Ripponden, Halifax.

I NOTE reports that plans, costing £2.6bn, are afoot to pump water from the North to the drought-hit south.

How typical of the distribution of England’s resources. We Northerners get the rain, the Southerners get the water!

No wonder the BBC’s London-based employees are horror struck by the prospect of their jobs being transferred to Salford.