Summary – The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 give the public access to large areas of privately owned land which would otherwise be an act of trespass. Landowners grudgingly share the land with the public and impose access conditions, which are frequently misrepresented by signs and hostile ‘wardens’ who monitor
It’s raining and windy today, which means it’s summer already. Time when, but for the rain, you’d be thinking of visiting the great outdoors, perhaps a National Park, to enjoy the countryside with your family.
It’s been 26 years since the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 was introduced (or ‘CRoW’ because we now speak in acronyms at all opportunities) . The fanfair has long since died down. We must therefore ask, what has Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 done for us?
He’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy.
Trespassing. That’s what you would’ve done but for the CRoW.
In fact, this wasn’t the governments first attempt to liberate vast amounts of countryside from exclusively private ownership. Head back to 1949 and we find the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 – in particular section 64 of that Act. Buried in amongst the sections and schedules which created the National Parks was this strange section 64. You can think of this 1949 legislation as a shot across the bow of our landed gentry.
The 1949 Act created the Lake District, the Peak District, the North Yorkshire Moors, Exmoor (etc etc) for the public to enjoy and preserved them. But Section 64 created a new right for land owners to agree with local government “open access”, for the benefit of the public. The message was clear – the government was making landowners an offer they couldn’t refuse. If you don’t agree to open up your land to the public, we’ll do it for you. Thus the “access agreement” was born. It presented landowners with something of which they were very afraid, i.e. disenfranchisement, and gave them control over it. It was a masterclass in manipulation.
Looking at the world through the eye of somewhat unfairly maligned land owners, this was mafioso tactics. They’d done nothing wrong. Stopping 3rd parties trespassing on your freehold, nothing could be more reasonable, frankly. A freehold is an ‘estate in fee simple absolute in possession’. Possession meaning the land was exclusively theirs. Who was the Labour government to arbitrarily confiscate their land, or compel them to share it with, well, you and me. What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine also. How very socialist of you.
How would you feel if the powers that be said your neighbours may now use your garden for access for free? Today, there would be immediate Human Rights Act challenges to this legislation, much like the Leasehold and Commonhold proposed reforms of 2024 and 2025.
Actually, the land owners were compensated (unlike the proposed 2026 reforms which intend to abolish large parts of the compensation). Whether or not this was fair for the landowners is very debatable. But it seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same.
You’ve got to think for your selves! You’re ALL individuals
Fast forward back to the year 2000, and the “New Labour” Government completed the job. It passed the CRoW opening up more private land to the public. The idea is simple. The CRoW Act creates a “right to roam” so you’re not trespassing by going on to privately owned land, e.g. in large parts of North Yorkshire by straying off a public footpath.
Generally speaking, trespass has never been a crime in the UK. However, it’s frequently bundled up with other crimes and called another name, e.g. aggravated trespass. If you trespass and damage property or harm a person, this is very much a crime. Step on his lordships birds’ eggs or break a fence and you were for it, if you got caught. Trespass was and is a tort, a civil wrong which exposes the trespasser to the civil courts system. Think injunctions, and as in the HS2 cases in 2022 – contempt of court (which can carry a custodial penalty), plus payment of compensation, damages and of course punitive adverse costs orders. Access to justice is ruinously expensive after all.
The CRoW legislation simply takes large areas of land, which were not subject to existing access agreements and says to the public – you can roam around on the land without fear of punishment.
Except when you should fear punishment.
No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle!
This right to roam is set out in section 2. And, for those of you who’re really annoyed by now it is the Countryside AND Rights of Way Act 2000. Extract…
“2 Rights of public in relation to access land.
(1) Any person is entitled by virtue of this subsection to enter and remain on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation, if and so long as—
(a) he does so without breaking or damaging any wall, fence, hedge, stile or gate, and
(b) he observes the general restrictions in Schedule 2 and any other restrictions imposed in relation to the land under Chapter II.”
Part a is easy to understand – and you can click through to schedule 2 to find your favourite restrictions. I think my favourite sections are (c) – you can take your dog (unless s23 applies, in which you can’t). Also part q is notable – game keepers take note!
“(q) in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land, does anything which is intended by him to have the effect—
(i) of intimidating those persons so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,
(ii) of obstructing that activity, or
(iii) of disrupting that activity,
(r) without reasonable excuse, does anything which (whether or not intended by him to have the effect mentioned in paragraph (q)) disturbs, annoys or obstructs any persons engaged in a lawful activity on the land,”
IF some tries to stop you using your roaming rights – they may be trespassing and they may be liable… This section is really important. Obviously, you mustn’t commit crimes, lights fires, injure birds or eggs, hunt or shoot without a licence, organise games, etc as set out in the schedule. However , camping, despite what the schedule says, is a recreational activity – see Darwall and another (Appellants) v Dartmoor National Park Authority (Respondent) as seems to be running, climbing, scrambling, cycling, swimming and so on an so forth which are unchallenged to date.
Dogs on CRoW land?
There is a prima facie right to take your dog roaming with you. The CRoW Act expressly permits this. But, there are exeptions…
Your k9 friend should be a on a leash of 2 metres or fewer (not ‘less’, ‘fewer’). Presumably the exceptions which apply to humans also apply to your dog e.g. like hang gliding, paragliding, organising games, or metal detecting. If you have a particularly adept and adventurous dog.
S23 permits land owners using the land for farming to ban dogs to protect birds and livestock. It’s not a simple as sticking a sign up on the gate saying ‘no dogs’ – the land owner must follow a statutory procedure for the ban to be effective – i.e. they must comply The Access to the Countryside (Exclusions and Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2003 This is not the work of moment. After this, they can put up signs and ban your k9 friend, but ignoring the sign remain merely a civil tort not a criminal offence.
Could be worse – Penalties on CRoW Land
So what? If you just go over use your right to roam and breach some restrictions or a s23 notice for your k9? At least it gets you out in the open. Penalties seem to be merely banning you from the land for 72 hours. The difficulty is that there’s no obligation under the act for you to give your details to the land owner which makes it quite difficult to ban you.
But… remember that aggravated trespass is a crime and the police could get involved (think Manchester Airport in a really extreme case, sounds far fetched until you remember that a lot of landowners or wardens carry fire arms…) so in theory, if the police were numerous enough and were so inclined you could be arrested, convicted, fined and or imprisoned.
The main risk of a criminal offence lies with the landowner under section 14 – putting up misleading signs likely to deter people using their right to roam. They face fines if they do this and with camera phones all over the place, it’s probably not a risk worth taking.
Ooh, you lucky bastard. It’s only Section 15, it’s not Area 51.
Land which was subject to an existing access agreement under s64 of the old 1948 Act when the CRoW started in the year 2000 is except from the CRoW rights under section 15. Annoyingly, there is no requirement to register access agreements at HM Land Registry or as a Land Charge, which means these section 15 areas remain something quite clandestine.
It’s not easy to get hold of access agreements relating to private land because one party is private and has an interest in withholding the information. And there is no public register of access agreements (unless you know differently). You can request these agreements from the relevant public body or land owner as a Freedom of Information Act request. This makes is very difficult to establish what are your access rights where you’re relying on the landowner to disclose them to you under s15.
Happily there are publicly available maps courtesy of Natural England which shows CRoW land with the right to roam and section 15 land which benefit the public via an existing access agreement. Link here
The data is open source so there are quite a few websites which will generate maps of which bit of land is access land and which is section 15 land with private access agreements.
The difficulty is that it’s not entirely clear what happens when the access agreements expire. Section 15 is disputed by land owners who argue that it’s interpretation is ambiguous. To me section 15 is not ambiguous. Land is only exempt from CRoW rights if there is an access agreement in force under sub section C. After the access agreement expires the land reverts to CRoW land. Contracts do not last in perpetuity. However, some land owners argue that the access agreements’ rights continue after the original agreement expires because the CRoW would improve the public’s rights to use their land, which was not intended by the Act. With respect, I doubt this interpretation correct.
Remember. Always look on the bright side of life.
Got a question about the CRoW?
Email or phone using the contact page or Get in touch asap using the form below
Legislation
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949
The Access to the Countryside (Exclusions and Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2003
Cases
Darwall and another (Appellants) v Dartmoor National Park Authority (Respondent)