BADFA's response to
Common Agricultural Policy and rights of way consultation

Jump down page to our response

http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/capsingle-payment/index.htm

sent to pso.consult@defra.gsi.gov.uk  (Defra)

CAP reform implementation: consultation on proposed and possible measures for implementation of cross compliance in England (Single Payment Scheme) Background: The reform of the Common Agricultural Policy agreed on 26 June 2003 represents a significant step towards a more sustainable future for farming. Decoupling subsidy from production represents a real sea change from the past and a major prize that will benefit the whole industry. It will leave farmers free to produce what the market and consumers want rather than what subsidy regimes dictate, and it will reduce the environmental impact of farming by removing an incentive to intensify production and by linking subsidy to compliance with environmental and other standards. As an integral part of the CAP Reform, Cross Compliance will help increase the sustainability of agriculture and the environmental performance of farmers - by providing an incentive to meet a range of new and existing requirements. For the first time, and as a condition of receiving the Single Payment, farmers will need to keep their land in Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC).

The relevant part of the consultation paper was as follows:
 

BADFA's response:

1. We are an active group involved with all aspects of paths from footpath to byway. We have been Parish Path Partners from the scheme's inception by the (then) Countryside Commission.

Question 23. Do you think that we should include measures to protect rights of way as set out above?

2. The foot and mouth events showed how much value is brought to the rural communities by visitors and it is, we think, very much in the interest of that community that every reasonable opportunity be taken to ensure the rural public-access network is in good shape. And it can hardly be in the public interest to reward people for use or non use of land when a public nuisance is being committed by those same people on or near that land.

Take these rural benefit and public interest arguments together and it seems to us that there is strong reason for supporting the rights of way suggestion.
 

3. The only issue we see in this principle is how directly connected the land should be. That is should a blocked path on one piece of land affect a grant on another? Until all farm land is registered it would be difficult to apply an ownership rule. Pragmatically it might best be dealt with on a per farm or per holding basis, with the owner or occupier of granted land needing to show they were not the owner or occupier of nearby nuisanced paths in order to avoid penalty.
As an absolute minimum the rule should apply to any path crossing or touching grant-aided land and to any continuation or branch of that path (in the grantee's control or use) up to where it meets a public vehicular road.


4. We note your words: "Farmers must not obstruct the path of a public right of way which runs across their land". We think this is a little confusing, obstruction is not always of the path itself, and also defining what is meant by 'the path' is not always as simple as it may appear. We would prefer that the words "the path of" were omitted. Or perhaps better still "Farmers must not physically obstruct any part of a public right of way or act to deter legitimate public use".
 

5. We note your words: "...however, farmers may plough a right of way so long as the path is reinstated within any prescribed time limit;". This is not altogether correct since a RUPP (or restricted byway) may not be ploughed, nor may a footpath or bridleway unless it is not reasonably practicable not to plough it. See Highways Act 1980. Indeed this ploughing rule is one that my Association feels sours relations between public and farmers. The compromise deal was reached for the 1990 ploughing act between NFU, CLA, User groups, Local Authorities and Government, or that is what we have been led to believe. But delivery by tillers of the fields, with a few shining exceptions, has been very poor indeed, and many of our members feel very let down by this as well as being physically inconvenienced.
We would prefer words such as "Farmers must fully comply with the ploughing and land disturbances clauses of the Highways Act 1980."
 

6. And for good measure we quarrel with your third paragraph: "Farmers must maintain any stile or gate for which they are responsible on their land that is on the path of a public right of way."
Firstly 'structure' is better (more inclusive) than 'stile or gate'.
Secondly "maintain" lacks precision and it might be very reasonable in addition to spell out that any structure (eg gate) on the grant-aided land should be compliant with the Countryside Agency supported British Standard BS5709:2001. This standard provides field measurable parameters to help test compliance and so provides a sure and convenient means of measuring and enforcing compliance.

7. And we would like a fourth paragraph requiring compliance with any other laws affecting the right of way which are down to landholders to observe.
 

Question 24
How workable do you consider these proposals to be and how do you think we could enforce these measures?
 

8. Given the will, they would be entirely workable. The financial penalty should be firmly and swiftly applied (by non-grant of funding or by immediate suspension of funding). Negotiation and compromise, which may properly have a place, should follow that. We have found with rights of way issues that a swift and firm response by Highway Authority or their agencies can result in much quicker and overall cheaper resolution, and that all parties including the landholder can gain from this approach. Where the Highway Authority starts off trying to accommodate the landholder, all parties can suffer, but especially the public.
 

9. Enforcement requires clarity both in the rules and in which paths are covered by the rules. We would ask you to read-in our paragraphs 3 to 7 above at this point.
In addition you could enlist the public in identifying issues on the ground. But this will only be possible if members of the public are aware of the applicable areas of land. So we ask that maps showing these areas are freely and easily available to the public. User groups like ours and of course the national groups are constitutionally charged with helping in this sort of way.

Chris Beney, chairman BADFA

 Back to 'Comment'