Greater Access to the Countryside (Hansard, 13 June 1984)

§ Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for increased access to the countryside. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure greater access to the countryside. Growth in the population inevitably puts pressure on farming land and the countryside, not only to make more agricultural land available for housing, but, on the one hand, fanners, who need to farm the land to produce food and crops for the benefit of the whole community, and, on the other, the ever-increasing number of people who wish to enjoy the countryside for walking, recreation and leisure.

Those competing claims tend to come most sharply into conflict over footpaths across farmland and access to the countryside. I am concerned that, at present, there is too little co-operation between walkers and farmers to ensure maximum access to the countryside, with minimum inconvenience to farmers. The present state of the law does not help to generate the, co-operation to create new, well-marked footpaths for the benefit of all.

It is not surprising that walkers become irritable and frustrated if farmers fence off footpaths, or that farmers become angry if walkers trample down crops. One of the reasons why farmers are not always enthusiastic about footpaths on their land is that, all too often, footpaths tend to go right across fields rather than round them. The reasons for that are historic and date back to a time when footpaths were used mainly as a means of communication by a few people, rather than for recreation and leisure by many. The numbers using footpaths were small and they tended to take the shortest distance between two fixed points—a straight line.

For example, the footpath between the villages of Shutford and Tadmarton near Banbury reputedly came into being because once a week the local vicar taking religious services rode that way between the churches of the two villages. The routes of footpaths have become fixed, but often such routes originated because of landscape features which no longer exist. For example, the same Shutford to Tadmarton footpath is shown on a map of early this century as following a hedge system which has long since disappeared.

The co-operation of farmers in creating new footpaths is likely to be greater if they were able sensibly to divert footpaths around fields. There are at present powers available to county councils, as the highway authority, to divert footpaths, but the procedures can be cumbersome and costly, as only one objection invariably means a public inquiry. It would appear that certain groups object to every application, however reasonable, to divert any footpath. Thus, farmers who have inconveniently routed footpaths crossing their land tend not to take the initiative to have them diverted, being apprehensive of getting themselves entangled in costs and administrative red tape.

This whole procedure could be simplified. People should, of course, be allowed to register objections to a proposed diversion, and the county highway authority must have regard to those objections before deciding whether to allow an application to change the route of a footpath, but this could be done without having to resort to a public inquiry every time an application is opposed. The Bill thus proposes that county councils be given 925 powers to divert footpaths wherever it seems to them that, in all the circumstances, and having regard to any objections, it is reasonable so to do.

In return for a simplification of the procedures for sensibly diverting footpaths, the Bill intends that farmers should have a statutory duty to take all reasonable steps to mark the route of any footpath crossing their land. At present, there is a statutory duty on the highway authority to mark footpaths when they leave the metal road but no duty on the farmer to mark the route of a footpath once it enters his land.

Further, the whole system of footpaths has developed a sort of rigor mortis, because few new footpaths are being created. This is, I suspect, partially because farmers are frustrated at the present complex of footpaths crisscrossing fields rather than going round them, and what they see as unreasonable opposition to any attempt at rationalisation.

It is also, I suspect, because there is a confusion of statutory duties under various Acts—for example, the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, various highways Acts and the Wildlife and Countryside Act—which place different statutory duties on landowners, county, district and parish councils.

For example, parish councils have powers to create new footpaths but rarely do so because they are unaware of their powers. A confusion of statutory duties contained in a variety of Acts is preventing new footpaths from being created, and I submit that all legislation relating to footpaths and bridleways should be consolidated into one Act of Parliament. The Bill seeks to achieve that so that everyone will know his responsibilities and opportunities to create new footpaths.

There are a number of places where new footpaths could be created—for example, farm tracks and disused railway lines — without causing inconvenience to farmers. My Bill is intended to ensure the maximum access to the countryside for as many people as possible, with a minimum of inconvenience to farmers and agriculture. We shall then see coming into being new footpaths suitable for family walks without disrupting farmers' crops or stock. I seek the leave of the House to introduce the Bill.