The Right to Roam: Redefining Land Ownership and Access
Introduction
Land ownership and access rights have long been a contentious issue in England. The article explores the complexities and limitations of the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act, which was introduced to provide greater access to the countryside for walkers and hikers. However, the process for certifying new access paths is convoluted and requires individuals to navigate various legal requirements. This has led to dissatisfaction among those who believe that the Act does not adequately protect their rights.
The Contrast with Scotland and Other European Countries
In contrast to England, Scotland passed a land-reform bill in 2003 that recognized the right to roam throughout the country for nonmotorized activities. This “right to roam” comes with a code of responsibilities, such as respecting private gardens and fields under active cultivation, as well as cleaning up after oneself. Similar systems have long been in place in other European countries, including Finland, Norway, Iceland, Austria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, and Switzerland. These countries have recognized the importance of allowing people to explore and enjoy the natural landscape without restrictive barriers.
The Problem of Land Ownership in England
Research conducted by environmental campaigner Guy Shrubsole reveals a stark picture of land ownership in England. A small percentage of land is owned by ordinary householders, while large portions are held by corporations, the aristocracy, and the gentry. In many cases, these ownership boundaries are relics of the land divisions and gifts made after the Norman Conquest in 1066, highlighting the long history of inequality and secrecy surrounding land ownership. This concentration of land ownership has resulted in limited access rights for the general public, with only 8% of land in England being freely accessible.
The Concept of Property Rights
Shrubsole emphasizes that property is not a tangible thing but a bundle of rights associated with tracts of land. These rights can be bought, sold, expanded, or curtailed based on legal codes that govern the land. The right to exclude others from one’s land has been a fundamental part of land ownership in England for centuries. However, in other countries, including liberal capitalist democracies, the right to exclude is not always the case. This highlights the cultural and historical nature of land ownership and access rights, rather than being inherent laws of nature.
Additional Piece: Exploring the Social and Environmental Benefits of Public Access to Land
Public access to land is not only a matter of personal freedom but also has significant social and environmental benefits. Here, we delve deeper into the advantages of allowing individuals to explore and enjoy the natural landscape.
1. Health and Well-being:
– Walking and hiking in nature have been proven to have numerous physical and mental health benefits. Access to open spaces reduces stress levels, lowers the risk of chronic diseases, and promotes overall well-being.
– Public access to land encourages people to engage in outdoor activities and lead more active lifestyles, combating the growing issue of sedentary behavior and its associated health problems.
2. Education and Connection with Nature:
– Allowing people to roam freely on the land provides opportunities for environmental education and fosters a deeper connection with nature. It enables individuals to learn about wildlife, ecosystems, and the importance of conservation.
– By giving people firsthand experience of the natural world, public access to land helps to instill a sense of responsibility and stewardship for the environment.
3. Social Inclusion and Equality:
– A lack of access to land can further exacerbate social inequalities. Public access rights create an equalizing force by providing opportunities for individuals from all socioeconomic backgrounds to enjoy the countryside.
– The right to roam helps to break down class barriers and fosters a sense of community by enabling people to connect and interact with others in shared public spaces.
4. Economic Impact:
– Public access to land can have a positive economic impact on local communities. It can attract tourists, boost local businesses, and create jobs in the outdoor recreation and tourism sectors.
– Accessible land and designated walking paths can enhance the attractiveness of rural areas, encouraging people to visit and support local economies.
Conclusion
The CROW Act in England has struggled to adequately address the complexities of land ownership and access rights. While other European countries have implemented more inclusive systems, England still has a long way to go in redefining its approach to land access. Recognizing the social, environmental, and economic benefits of public access to land is crucial for creating more equitable and sustainable systems. By embracing the right to roam, England can provide its citizens with the opportunity to explore and enjoy the natural beauty that lies within its borders.
Summary:
The article discusses the limitations and complexities of the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act in England, which was introduced to provide greater access to the countryside. However, the certification process for new access paths is burdensome, requiring individuals to meet strict legal requirements. In contrast, Scotland and other European countries have implemented more inclusive systems, recognizing the right to roam as a fundamental part of public access to land. Research reveals that land ownership in England is highly concentrated, with a small percentage owned by ordinary householders. This inequality in land ownership has led to limited access rights for the general public. The concept of property rights is explored, emphasizing that property is a bundle of rights associated with land, rather than a tangible thing. An additional piece delves deeper into the social and environmental benefits of public access to land, including improved health and well-being, increased education and connection with nature, social inclusion and equality, and positive economic impact. Overall, the article highlights the need for England to redefine its approach to land ownership and access, and embrace the right to roam for the benefit of its citizens.
—————————————————-
| Article | Link |
|---|---|
| UK Artful Impressions | Premiere Etsy Store |
| Sponsored Content | View |
| 90’s Rock Band Review | View |
| Ted Lasso’s MacBook Guide | View |
| Nature’s Secret to More Energy | View |
| Ancient Recipe for Weight Loss | View |
| MacBook Air i3 vs i5 | View |
| You Need a VPN in 2023 – Liberty Shield | View |
The CROW Act was also time-limited; there is likely less than a decade left during which new access paths can be certified. But the process for adding them is byzantine. To certify a right of way, you have to prove that you’ve never asked a landowner for permission to walk there (which turns a right into a retractable handout); that you have used it for at least 20 years (an accepted stand-in for proof that a right has been earned by virtue of being exercised since “time immemorial,” a period which, because of quirks of English law, officially ended with the death of Henry II in 1189); and that you and others have used the path openly without your right to do so being challenged. Open-access land cannot have been “improved” by agriculture, proof of which often requires expensive certifications by botanists. This can lead to absurdity, says Ashbrook, who likes to walk up a hill near her house in the Chilterns. It looks the same all over, but because of what Ashbrook described as “botanical issues of great detail,” only one side qualified as access land, open for rambling. The other is closed.
To Hayes, it seemed as if all these technicalities undercut the rights that the CROW Act was supposed to enshrine. They made clear that the rules about who owned what and who could go where were cultural and historical artifacts, not laws of nature. They were just choices.
Another approach was visible just across the border. In 2003, the Scottish Parliament passed a land-reform bill that recognized the uncontested right to walk, camp, cycle, swim, canoe and perform any other form of nonmotorized exploration throughout the country. Known as the “right to roam,” it came with a code of responsibilities: Access didn’t apply to private gardens immediately around houses or to fields in active cultivation, and people were expected to clean up their litter and dog poop, to cook on stoves instead of open fires, to avoid rock climbing near nesting birds, to close gates behind them and so on. But it was clear and direct and not even unique to Scotland. Similar systems had long been in place in other European countries, including Finland, Norway, Iceland, Austria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic and Switzerland. In some cases, the right was considered so old and so fundamental, so obvious, that for a long time no one bothered to codify it. In Sweden, the tourism board developed an ad campaign around the allure of what the country calls allemansrätten, or everyman’s right. “It’s a right protected by the law that allows me to sleep and eat and walk pretty much wherever I want,” the voice-over explains. “Now you can, too.”
As Hayes began researching land ownership, he came across the work of Guy Shrubsole, an environmental campaigner who, in an effort to find out who owned the land whose management practices he was worried about, had spent years filing records requests and poring over maps, writing a blog and later a book called “Who Owns England?” In answering the question, Shrubsole painted a stark picture of inequality and secrecy: Only 5 percent of the country was owned by ordinary householders. Large chunks were held by corporations and by the aristocracy and gentry, often following boundaries that were relics of the land divisions and gifts made after the Norman Conquest in 1066. (The Land Registry does not track land using these categories.) “A few thousand dukes, baronets and country squires own far more land than all of middle England put together,” Shrubsole wrote. He cited a remark by the late Duke of Westminster, who advised aspiring entrepreneurs in Britain to “make sure they have an ancestor who was a very close friend of William the Conqueror.” If you wanted to know how much of England’s land offered no right of access, even to ramblers, even after the CROW Act, the answer was 92 percent.
“Property,” Shrubsole told me, “isn’t really a thing. It’s a bundle of rights,” a series of possible actions that are associated with tracts of land but that can be severed, bought, sold and expanded or curtailed by the specific legal codes that govern that land. This was why you hear people speak of mineral rights or surface rights or water rights or commoners’ rights or treaty rights, which in the United States often include ongoing rights to fish, hunt and gather on land that tribes no longer control. “Part of that bundle of rights in England for the last several hundred years has been the right to exclude other people from your land,” Shrubsole says. “The thing is, that’s not always the case in every country, and even in other liberal, capitalist democracies.”
—————————————————-