Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

  1. #1

    Default Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

    I believe that there were some clauses in this act which provided river access, which were removed... does any one know what they were?
    Doug Dew
    "The best is yet to come" My Father


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Certain Government based fishing interests lobbied hard and basically said it would not get through unless they were taken out....

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    North West England
    Posts
    188

    Default

    This strangely enough popped up in a conversation I had with the Rivers Access Campaign. It seems to be the main argument used by the "other side" I.E if they wanted to remove Access Agreements (which they should) and re-work all of the maps to show where access was O.K and where it was not it would "cost too much".

    I guess the "other side" would be the lobbyists at governmental level.

    Funnily enough, as with access on rivers in this country, the C.R.O.W act itself is quite restrictive. I did my third year work as a photographer at Uni on the two and researched into the Land Reform Act in Scotland. It's the latter that forms so much of the free access in Scotland we love.

    As some of you will have seen in a previous posting, I've done the first of a series of film's on access. I hope to feature the C.R.O.W act in more detail in the second one....watch this space!
    _______________________
    Images of the Lake District and Beyond.
    http://imageoutdoors.co.uk
    UKCC L2 Canoe

  4. #4
    monkey_pork's Avatar
    monkey_pork is offline a wind age, a wolf age - before the world goes headlong Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    -
    Posts
    4,856

    Default

    It'll be a matter of public record - from the consultation draft(s) to the finished legislation, tho' it'd be a proper research job to work it all through.

    Hansard
    will have any Parliamentary discussion that took place (assuming there was debate at that stage in the process, which I doubt).
    Last edited by monkey_pork; 22nd-April-2012 at 07:13 AM. Reason: Hmm, clearly a bit too early in the morning to form coherent sentences or spell things properly ...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Warwickshire
    Posts
    360

    Default

    I don't think there were ever any clauses in the bill that specifically gave access to rivers. However, as drafted, the bill would have allowed paddling on rivers on access land simply because the activity was not listed among the exclusions at Schedule 1. An amendment was introduced at some stage so that, as enacted, the legislation contains specific exclusions of using a vessel on a river and bathing in a river in the list of restrictions at Schedule 1.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Poole Dorset UK
    Posts
    2,282
    Journal Entries
    738

    Default

    I wish I understood what you people were talking about, as it might affect where I can go paddle.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Shefford, Central Bedfordshire
    Posts
    1,015

    Default

    I saw, on the news yesterday, that ramblers are now campaigning for more access rights.
    Simms ..

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Pity they said the would not support us when asked a while ago.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by No Idea View Post
    I wish I understood what you people were talking about, as it might affect where I can go paddle.
    Congratulations you are in the 95% majority who also do not understand it.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Posts
    1,629

    Default

    The problem with the inclusion of rivers in the CROW act was that rivers would have been classed as open access land, this would have entailed detail mapping of all areas, a mamoth task. It would also have involved creating many new paths to land locked sections. These quotes are from NE's Q&A leaflet.

    Why didn't the CROW Act 2000 create new rights to use woodland and watersides too?
    The Countryside Agency, together with other agencies (Forestry Commission, Environment Agency, English Nature and Countryside Council for Wales), advised the Government that both land types were too diverse and fragmented for statutory rights of access to be a practical proposition.

    What happens if an area of open country has no right of way leading to and from it?
    Local highway authorities have powers to negotiate public right of way creation agreements and orders with landowners. These powers have been extended under the CROW Act to enable the establishment of public access to or across land adjacent to inaccessible islands of access land.

    We should not be put off by this, what we are asking for is the right to navigate the rivers not treat them as open access land a totally different use. The principal is well astablished in English law of formalising ancient rights of way into Highways, Bridle Paths & Footpaths, all we are asking for is the same formalisation of ancient rights of navigation. The ancient rights on rivers are much older than land, when Britain was completely covered in woodland the easiest way to get about would have been in dugout canoe on the rivers and streams. Human nature has been shown to develop in similar ways in totally unconnected parts of the world, the natives living in the rainforests now use canoes in any water available as it is easier that traveling on land. I am sure we would have done exactly the same in Britain.
    Last edited by cloudman; 30th-May-2012 at 11:56 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •