UKC

I don't know if this has been discussed yet on the Forum, but it appears that the Land Owning and Farming Community are submitting proposals to enable them to make temporary diversions to public footpaths where they graze cattle and other specified livestock. 

The Ramblers and other organisations with an interest in access to the countryside, including the BMC, have responded to these proposals

https://www.ramblers.org.uk/news/latest-news/2020/october/proposals-to-dive...

This is a situation which needs careful watching as it could result in serious interference with our rights of access to the countryside, particularly the fact that the proposals do submitted do not include a necessity for involvement by County Council's footpath officers.

Also as the Rambler's response points out the proposals could seriously disrupt established walks and routes with little regard to the safety and convenience of walkers, cyclists, riders, climbers and other countryside users.

In reply :

The Rambler's letter to the Minister:

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Livestock%20and%20diversions_Lord%20Gardine...

The best way to deal with this is to provide fenced permissive paths around fields with animals, which I prefer when walking as large animals make me nervous.  The farmers who genuinely care about their responsibilities do this anyway - only the most stubborn would insist on walking across.

There is diversion and diversion. A small temporary diversion around a field isn't a major problem, and as you say happens anyway, and most people are perfectly happy. However there is a risk in giving land owners carte blanche to make temporary diversions  for periods of 40 days at a time, without LA involvement is an open invitation for uncaring land owners to make life really difficult for users. As the letter to the Minister says, it could go on for field after field, even divert from the character of the walk/trail completely. And again as the letter points out a trail could be out of use and diverted from over half the year.

There is also the question of providing suitable and safe sties, gates etc and adequate sign posting, bearing in mind that diversions will not appear on the OS.

Whether the intention is well meaning or not, it clearly gives an anti-access charter for landowners if they so desire. I can't see how the 40 day rule could be policed, and would be entirely dependant on the public reporting........and to who?

As far as I can see the good farmers will carry on sign-posting, maintaining stiles, regularly assessing their stocks risk, possibly only occasionally using these new powers (if passed) when they get new stock, or are moving stock around and the anti-public NFU brigade will just use it to close the path network.

It probably would end up being counterproductive as members of the public 'trespass' to get round closed fields to link up paths.....but may be thats what the NFU want. Land-owning Tory gov in power, stir it up and hope in the fall-out they get more draconian powers. 

My cousin was a dairy farmer with footpaths, he always took the view the easiest thing was to keep all the finger posts, gates and stiles in good nick, hedges trimmed back where crossed by the footpath and cut a swath along the footpath in open fields so that the public knew exactly where they should be going, and he knew where they were. Helping them help him, and vice versa.  He was firmly of the opinion that being an arse would just lead to more problems.

I appreciate that may give a sense of safety, but it rather spoils the sense of walking through a field and is much less pleasant in my view - I’d prefer not to pass through the countryside in a barbed wire corridor !

True, but most farmers will only do it where the animals do pose a potential threat, because it costs them money.  So that has its own innate protection, in a way.

If the animals pose a threat, e.g. bulls of particular breeds, or due to their temperament, or past behaviour , HSE guidance (and some law) for England is quiet clearly, they should not be in a field with public access. In Scotland the situation is slightly different with SOAC, and Scottish Law being different from English law.

I wholeheartedly agree with DrS sentiment, but in practical terms I suppose you’re right - it probably wouldn’t actually happen that often and we’d hope that in the instances it did it was meaningful and helpful. In a nutshell, I’m pretty against it but probably think the reality is insignificant (at least in the area in which I walk/run) compared to the apparent immediate threat. But, I guess I’d perhaps be concerned about the general direction of travel towards more restricted access that will inevitably become locally divergent. 

I’d be interested to know whether, if on open access land, we’d still be permitted to hop the fence and do our own thing. Might be an interesting case if that ended badly!

You just have to be kidding. 

I am from farming stock, both sides, way back into distant time. 

Pissing people off is right up there with making money. Certainly in my blood lines unfortunately. 

You can't link to a document on your hard drive.

How many cars can you get behind that Tractor?

As an aside I don't know whether the NFU should be thought of as representative of the Farming 'Community' en mass. They don't represent tenant farmers interests (deliberately, as they represent their masters) and tend to be skewed/dominated by very large land-holders.....but this is probably a different discussion. When the NFU and CLA combine...its invariably driven by and for, landed privilege, sometimes wrapped up in a smoke screen of helping the small farmer.

Yes, sorry. Click on the "read the letter here" in the attachment to the OP

'Git orff moi land!!!!!'

Slightly off topic but we have a footpath running through our school playing field. It is really barely used by the public. It runs diagonally and in one corner is a style and in the other there are 2 gates, a small wooden footpath gate and a large metal field gate. The small gate was blocked by some overgrown willow so everyone used the field gate. The gates share a post. We were surprised to get a call from the LA ordering us to sort out the gate as there had been several complaints from the Ramblers Association. Seemed a bit petty to me.

On the face of it, it does seem petty.

Which gate is actually on the footpath? Presumably it's the small wooden one, so if you locked the metal one, which, if it is not on the footpath, it would result in the footpath becoming impassable.

I appreciate that your allowing the metal gate to be used is a considerate gesture but it has no legal force and you, or a successor, could withdraw this privilege at any time. This would result in the path being blocked, a situation the LA want to avoid. As a landowner the school is legally required to keep the actual footpath open and unobstructed. 

40 days is a long time and a less than scrupulous person could use it to their advantage. It would take the LA a few days to spot, and the date would need to be logged, and at the end of the time who is going to check, some people would consider it petty, so that could easy run 10 days before a letter to the LA then another few days for the LA to respond, that 40 days could easily be dragged to 60 and with a bit of guile and an appeal, 80 -90 or more. Its by abusing things like this that people like Cummings get away with building unregulated houses. 

Its so sad we have to worry about the lowest common denominator, or as I call them, Gits.

The small wooden one was blocked and is the footpath gate but the metal one is easy to open and unlocked. As it happend we cleared the willow and now walkers have a choice of 2 gates!

HSE guidance https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/ais17ew.htm also provides a list of other options before putting cattle in fields with access eg relocation, temporary fencing etc. However, it doesn't get read as much as it should, particulalry by older farmers. 

The CLA proposals, as they stand, would be  open to misuse ie a first port of call instead of a last and are at the public expense + would potentially create confusion for users.  There is a case for statutory diversions but it would be better at the landowners expense thus ensuring they think about the other options first.