I've just received a reply from the William Crookshank, of the Environment Agency, in response to my emails about the recent EA report into English & Welsh river access. It would seem that the EA have used Section 16 of the Countryside Rights of Way Act (CRoW Act) to enshrine a voluntary access agreement into permanent access. Whilst they may well wish to publicise this as "unique", and applaud their efforts, they seem to have missed the point.
Kayakers in England and Wales have been actively pursuing 'voluntary agreements' for 40 odd years, and in the majority of cases there is little or no interest from landowners to enter into voluntary agreements. Where landowners have, they're usually limited and restrictive in nature and we've been expected to thank them for their kindness. So, in the absence of any willing to enter into voluntary agreements, how does the EA expect their 'unique' use of Section 16 of the CRoW act to actually make a difference?
It strikes me that their use of Section 16 will suffer from the Law of Unintended Consequences, and will actually mean less landowners than before consider entering into 'voluntary agreements' if they believe that these are irreversible because of the 'unique' use of the CRoW Act.
How much longer must we wait for a change in the law, similar to the situation in Scotland??
Subscribe to RSS Feed
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home