Latest news with #RightToRoam
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Uncommon Ground by Patrick Galbraith: Everything wrong with Right to Roam
Uncommon Ground by Patrick Galbraith (William Collins £22, 368pp) Right to Roam is a vociferous pressure group that demands far greater access to the countryside for 'the ordinary people of Britain'. This demand depends upon a very particular narrative: at some point in the past, rich aristocrats stole the land from the people and shut us out. We must take it back. It's a matter of social justice. Does any of this make sense, asks Patrick Galbraith? What effect would it have on our precious, beleaguered countryside if Right to Roam triumphed? After all, one of their leading lights recently tweeted a demand for 'the People' to be allowed to wander freely anywhere along field margins. It caused uproar. Field margins are some of the most precious wildlife habitats of all, where our rarest birds nest. Yet what makes Uncommon Ground such a superb read is Galbraith's generous even-handedness, his endless curiosity and his energetic research among all sorts of people, including the Right to Roamers themselves. They like to dress as Morris dancers or woodland sprites, wear face paint, play ukuleles and sing folk songs. He likes their eccentricity but despairs of their ignorance. It isn't true we are excluded anyway. We enjoy an amazing 140,000 miles of rights of way across England and Wales. Some open-access campaigners, meanwhile, are bluntly destructive. They destroy crow traps, even though control of corvid numbers is crucial to bird conservation. An old Devon gamekeeper tells Galbraith about one activist who tore down a lot of fencing as a protest. Yet it wasn't put up by some greedy landowner but Natural England. 'It was to stop the sheep getting in the ancient woodland.' Other problems created by careless or selfish 'human access' include Scottish mountain bikers disrupting capercaillie breeding grounds and jet skiers terrorising wintering birds on the coast. Still, he enjoys his wild swim with a mass trespass group in a reservoir owned by United Utilities. Galbraith never argues puritanically, like some militant eco-warriors, that his fellow humans should be excluded from swathes of the countryside to protect wildlife. In fact he wants far more engagement between people and nature. In his ceaseless quest for a truly 3D, multi-faceted portrait of our country, he goes walking with the British Naturist Ramblers in a bluebell wood, appropriately attired (ie boots and socks, no more.) They're an amiable bunch, harmless and nature-loving, but rather lacking in female members, he notes. He meets the Earl of Leicester, proud proprietor of Holkham Hall in Norfolk, just the sort of toff that the Roamers despise. Yet fully one fifth of his 25,000 acres is superbly managed nature reserve. Public footpaths thread across the other 20,000, and Holkham also hosts a regular 5k Parkrun, which the earl joins in with! This is the kind of aristo we can warm to. Especially when he tells Galbraith, while rolling a cigarette, that it gives him 'great pleasure to beat farmers on the estate who are half his age'. The idea that 'they' are to blame – that is, rich landowners and aristos – is a hopeless oversimplification. 'Landowners and farmers aren't the cause, but they could be part of the solution.' In the end, lack of access isn't the problem, it's lack of understanding. Millions go to the seaside every year, he points out, yet how many know there are two different species of seal in the UK? If only more people did country things in the country. Our countryside is changing fast. Could the solution be a win-win for all concerned? With commitment and imagination, yes, says Galbraith.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
How entry fees took over Britain's countryside
Growing stretches of the English countryside are 'falling behind a paywall,' campaigners warn as national parks grapple with drastic funding cuts. The Peak District National Park Authority caused uproar last week when executives said they were mulling the introduction of a £1 entry fee. Meanwhile, visitors to the New Forest face fresh parking charges. Elsewhere, centuries-old free access to Lord Bathurst's Cirencester Park in Gloucestershire was monetised last year, access to a popular waterfall on Dorset's Bridehead Estate was blocked as of Monday, and the National Trust has hiked its membership fees by 25pc in the space of just three years. While the fees may be small, campaigners say they underpin a crisis of growing inaccessibility to Britain's beauty spots. Recent government research found that 34pc of people do not have access to a woodland larger than 50 acres within 4km of their home. And just 8pc of land in England is covered by the right to roam – making it one of the worst rate rates in Europe, according to a separate 2022 study. Lewis Winks, of the Right to Roam campaign, said: 'From entry fees for historically open parks, to pay-for-permission wild camping and river swimming, the paywalling of the countryside is quietly shutting the public out. 'Britain already has the lowest levels of nature connectedness in Europe – we should be making it easier for everyone to get outside, not creating more barriers.' An entry fee to England's most accessible national park, the Peak District, has been suggested by its chief executive Phil Mulligan. The authority's financial troubles have been blamed on a fixed government grant that has not accounted for inflation or other costs such as the rise in the minimum wage. The dwindling of funds comes as the Peak District grapples with parking mayhem, overcrowding and litter problems which have blighted popular attractions such as Mam Tor. Mr Mulligan told the BBC that the park, which has around 13 million visitors per year, has cut 10pc of its staff in recent months and suffered a 50pc real terms funding cut over the last decade. A 10p per person fee would cover its recent losses, while a bolder £1 rate would eliminate the need for core government funding. The idea has been backed by the Reform UK leader of Derbyshire County Council. But the Peak District isn't alone in considering an admission charge. Kevin Bishop, chief executive of the Dartmoor National Park Authority, questioned if the rugged moorlands need to become the 'equivalent to a low-emission zone' where 'you get charged entry'. As reported by The Times, he said a public debate was needed on how national parks' upkeep should be paid for. 'Are you going to have a national park funding model whereby you have to pay a hiking licence, like you have to do in some countries every time you want to go for a walk?' The prospect of enforcing entry fees to access our national parks – which would need to be greenlit by the Government – has split opinion. Diane Drinkwater, of the British Beekeepers Association, believes access to nature 'should never become a luxury', and stresses that revenue raised must be ring-fenced and reinvested into the natural world. Kate Ashbrook, of the Open Spaces Society, said the group 'would certainly object to a fee just to enter an area', while regular Peak District hiker, Chloe Groom, said: 'The people who will be hit hardest are those that visit the national park two or three times a week. This takes enjoying the outdoors from a free and accessible activity to one that has a price tag.' Reacting after news broke of the potential £1 charge, Telegraph reader, Lee McLoughlin, commented: 'Here begins the monetising of outdoor spaces. Hell awaits society.' Mike Ross, who labelled the proposal 'ridiculous', said 'soon we won't be able to visit any part of the country without paying fees. What is life coming to?'. A Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs spokesman said: 'Our national parks are a source of great national pride, which is why this government is providing them with a capital uplift of £15m. 'This is in addition to the £400m we are investing in restoring nature across the country. We are also helping national parks cut through bureaucracy and take an entrepreneurial approach to boost earnings.' Cash-strapped authorities have also been accused of exploiting Britain's beauty spots via their car parking fees. A minimum stay at Snowdon's popular Pen-y-Pass car park costs £20. Staying for a full day sets visitors back £40. Examples of rate increases at beauty spots are endless. Despite strong opposition, Leeds City Council this year introduced parking charges at five of its parklands, while Labour-run Birmingham City Council is pushing to bring in controversial rates at a trio of parks visited by thousands each year. The year-round fees, costing up to £5 a day, are proposed for Sutton Park, Sheldon Country Park and Lickey Hills Country Park. Ewan Mackey, a Conservative councillor, said: 'These parks were given to the people of this city for their use in perpetuity, for the benefit of their health and well-being. 'They weren't given to the council to be used as an out in Labour's ongoing cycle of crises.' The council concedes the charges are 'unpopular', but said in a report that it is 'reasonable to ask park users to contribute financially to [their] upkeep'. Elsewhere, Forestry England is considering introducing fees at its 130 car parks in the New Forest. Branded 'highly immoral' and a 'penny pinching' tactic by critics, the public body is understood to be eyeing up the parking price plan for next year. It partly blamed the need to charge motorists on 'prolonged bad weather' which has damaged its car parks and increased maintenance bills. A spokesman said: 'Caring for the New Forest has become increasingly expensive in recent years. This includes the price of vital materials needed to repair and maintain the car parks that have increased by more than 50pc over the last three years. 'At the same time, higher levels of damage to trails and car parks have been caused by prolonged bad weather and increasing usage.' Forestry England said less than 20pc of its funding comes from the Government. The spokesman added: 'We need to raise the majority of funds for car parks, trails and all of the work we do, ourselves. A sustainable approach to funding is needed if we are going to be able to continue to do this vital work and provide these facilities.' For those regularly using beauty spot car parks, annual membership with charities and organisations such as the National Trust, RSPB and Forestry Commission continues to be the most cost-effective option. Locations such as the White Cliffs of Dover (£6 per car) charge for parking, but the sites are free to use for members. Those looking to save on National Trust annual membership can purchase a National Trust for Scotland annual pass for £74.40, and still benefit from the parking perks in the rest of the UK. This is £22 cheaper than buying traditional National Trust membership. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
How entry fees took over Britain's countryside
Growing stretches of the English countryside are 'falling behind a paywall,' campaigners warn as national parks grapple with drastic funding cuts. The Peak District National Park Authority caused uproar last week when executives said they were mulling the introduction of a £1 entry fee. Meanwhile, visitors to the New Forest face fresh parking charges. Elsewhere, centuries-old free access to Lord Bathurst's Cirencester Park in Gloucestershire was monetised last year, access to a popular waterfall on Dorset's Bridehead Estate was blocked as of Monday, and the National Trust has hiked its membership fees by 25pc in the space of just three years. While the fees may be small, campaigners say they underpin a crisis of growing inaccessibility to Britain's beauty spots. Recent government research found that 34pc of people do not have access to a woodland larger than 50 acres within 4km of their home. And just 8pc of land in England is covered by the right to roam – making it one of the worst rate rates in Europe, according to a separate 2022 study. Lewis Winks, of the Right to Roam campaign, said: 'From entry fees for historically open parks, to pay-for-permission wild camping and river swimming, the paywalling of the countryside is quietly shutting the public out. 'Britain already has the lowest levels of nature connectedness in Europe – we should be making it easier for everyone to get outside, not creating more barriers.' An entry fee to England's most accessible national park, the Peak District, has been suggested by its chief executive Phil Mulligan. The authority's financial troubles have been blamed on a fixed government grant that has not accounted for inflation or other costs such as the rise in the minimum wage. The dwindling of funds comes as the Peak District grapples with parking mayhem, overcrowding and litter problems which have blighted popular attractions such as Mam Tor. Mr Mulligan told the BBC that the park, which has around 13 million visitors per year, has cut 10pc of its staff in recent months and suffered a 50pc real terms funding cut over the last decade. A 10p per person fee would cover its recent losses, while a bolder £1 rate would eliminate the need for core government funding. The idea has been backed by the Reform UK leader of Derbyshire County Council. But the Peak District isn't alone in considering an admission charge. Kevin Bishop, chief executive of the Dartmoor National Park Authority, questioned if the rugged moorlands need to become the 'equivalent to a low-emission zone' where 'you get charged entry'. As reported by The Times, he said a public debate was needed on how national parks' upkeep should be paid for. 'Are you going to have a national park funding model whereby you have to pay a hiking licence, like you have to do in some countries every time you want to go for a walk?' The prospect of enforcing entry fees to access our national parks – which would need to be greenlit by the Government – has split opinion. Diane Drinkwater, of the British Beekeepers Association, believes access to nature 'should never become a luxury', and stresses that revenue raised must be ring-fenced and reinvested into the natural world. Kate Ashbrook, of the Open Spaces Society, said the group 'would certainly object to a fee just to enter an area', while regular Peak District hiker, Chloe Groom, said: 'The people who will be hit hardest are those that visit the national park two or three times a week. This takes enjoying the outdoors from a free and accessible activity to one that has a price tag.' Reacting after news broke of the potential £1 charge, Telegraph reader, Lee McLoughlin, commented: 'Here begins the monetising of outdoor spaces. Hell awaits society.' Mike Ross, who labelled the proposal 'ridiculous', said 'soon we won't be able to visit any part of the country without paying fees. What is life coming to?'. A Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs spokesman said: 'Our national parks are a source of great national pride, which is why this government is providing them with a capital uplift of £15m. 'This is in addition to the £400m we are investing in restoring nature across the country. We are also helping national parks cut through bureaucracy and take an entrepreneurial approach to boost earnings.' Cash-strapped authorities have also been accused of exploiting Britain's beauty spots via their car parking fees. A minimum stay at Snowdon's popular Pen-y-Pass car park costs £20. Staying for a full day sets visitors back £40. Examples of rate increases at beauty spots are endless. Despite strong opposition, Leeds City Council this year introduced parking charges at five of its parklands, while Labour-run Birmingham City Council is pushing to bring in controversial rates at a trio of parks visited by thousands each year. The year-round fees, costing up to £5 a day, are proposed for Sutton Park, Sheldon Country Park and Lickey Hills Country Park. Ewan Mackey, a Conservative councillor, said: 'These parks were given to the people of this city for their use in perpetuity, for the benefit of their health and well-being. 'They weren't given to the council to be used as an out in Labour's ongoing cycle of crises.' The council concedes the charges are 'unpopular', but said in a report that it is 'reasonable to ask park users to contribute financially to [their] upkeep'. Elsewhere, Forestry England is considering introducing fees at its 130 car parks in the New Forest. Branded 'highly immoral' and a 'penny pinching' tactic by critics, the public body is understood to be eyeing up the parking price plan for next year. It partly blamed the need to charge motorists on 'prolonged bad weather' which has damaged its car parks and increased maintenance bills. A spokesman said: 'Caring for the New Forest has become increasingly expensive in recent years. This includes the price of vital materials needed to repair and maintain the car parks that have increased by more than 50pc over the last three years. 'At the same time, higher levels of damage to trails and car parks have been caused by prolonged bad weather and increasing usage.' Forestry England said less than 20pc of its funding comes from the Government. The spokesman added: 'We need to raise the majority of funds for car parks, trails and all of the work we do, ourselves. A sustainable approach to funding is needed if we are going to be able to continue to do this vital work and provide these facilities.' For those regularly using beauty spot car parks, annual membership with charities and organisations such as the National Trust, RSPB and Forestry Commission continues to be the most cost-effective option. Locations such as the White Cliffs of Dover (£6 per car) charge for parking, but the sites are free to use for members. Those looking to save on National Trust annual membership can purchase a National Trust for Scotland annual pass for £74.40, and still benefit from the parking perks in the rest of the UK. This is £22 cheaper than buying traditional National Trust membership. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Telegraph
How entry fees took over Britain's countryside
Growing stretches of the English countryside are 'falling behind a paywall,' campaigners warn as national parks grapple with drastic funding cuts. The Peak District National Park Authority caused uproar last week when executives said they were mulling the introduction of a £1 entry fee. Meanwhile, visitors to the New Forest face fresh parking charges. Elsewhere, centuries-old free access to Lord Bathurst's Cirencester Park in Gloucestershire was monetised last year, access to a popular waterfall on Dorset's Bridehead Estate was blocked as of Monday, and the National Trust has hiked its membership fees by 25pc in the space of just three years. While the fees may be small, campaigners say they underpin a crisis of growing inaccessibility to Britain's beauty spots. Recent government research found that 34pc of people do not have access to a woodland larger than 50 acres within 4km of their home. And just 8pc of land in England is covered by the right to roam – making it one of the worst rate rates in Europe, according to a separate 2022 study. Lewis Winks, of the Right to Roam campaign, said: 'From entry fees for historically open parks, to pay-for-permission wild camping and river swimming, the paywalling of the countryside is quietly shutting the public out. 'Britain already has the lowest levels of nature connectedness in Europe – we should be making it easier for everyone to get outside, not creating more barriers.' National park entry fees An entry fee to England's most accessible national park, the Peak District, has been suggested by its chief executive Phil Mulligan. The authority's financial troubles have been blamed on a fixed government grant that has not accounted for inflation or other costs such as the rise in the minimum wage. The dwindling of funds comes as the Peak District grapples with parking mayhem, overcrowding and litter problems which have blighted popular attractions such as Mam Tor. Mr Mulligan told the BBC that the park, which has around 13 million visitors per year, has cut 10pc of its staff in recent months and suffered a 50pc real terms funding cut over the last decade. A 10p per person fee would cover its recent losses, while a bolder £1 rate would eliminate the need for core government funding. The idea has been backed by the Reform UK leader of Derbyshire County Council. But the Peak District isn't alone in considering an admission charge. Kevin Bishop, chief executive of the Dartmoor National Park Authority, questioned if the rugged moorlands need to become the 'equivalent to a low-emission zone' where 'you get charged entry'. As reported by The Times, he said a public debate was needed on how national parks' upkeep should be paid for. 'Are you going to have a national park funding model whereby you have to pay a hiking licence, like you have to do in some countries every time you want to go for a walk?' The prospect of enforcing entry fees to access our national parks – which would need to be greenlit by the Government – has split opinion. Diane Drinkwater, of the British Beekeepers Association, believes access to nature 'should never become a luxury', and stresses that revenue raised must be ring-fenced and reinvested into the natural world. Kate Ashbrook, of the Open Spaces Society, said the group 'would certainly object to a fee just to enter an area', while regular Peak District hiker, Chloe Groom, said: 'The people who will be hit hardest are those that visit the national park two or three times a week. This takes enjoying the outdoors from a free and accessible activity to one that has a price tag.' Reacting after news broke of the potential £1 charge, Telegraph reader, Lee McLoughlin, commented: 'Here begins the monetising of outdoor spaces. Hell awaits society.' Mike Ross, who labelled the proposal 'ridiculous', said 'soon we won't be able to visit any part of the country without paying fees. What is life coming to?'. A Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs spokesman said: 'Our national parks are a source of great national pride, which is why this government is providing them with a capital uplift of £15m. 'This is in addition to the £400m we are investing in restoring nature across the country. We are also helping national parks cut through bureaucracy and take an entrepreneurial approach to boost earnings.' Car park fees continue to climb Cash-strapped authorities have also been accused of exploiting Britain's beauty spots via their car parking fees. A minimum stay at Snowdon's popular Pen-y-Pass car park costs £20. Staying for a full day sets visitors back £40. Examples of rate increases at beauty spots are endless. Despite strong opposition, Leeds City Council this year introduced parking charges at five of its parklands, while Labour-run Birmingham City Council is pushing to bring in controversial rates at a trio of parks visited by thousands each year. The year-round fees, costing up to £5 a day, are proposed for Sutton Park, Sheldon Country Park and Lickey Hills Country Park. Ewan Mackey, a Conservative councillor, said: 'These parks were given to the people of this city for their use in perpetuity, for the benefit of their health and well-being. 'They weren't given to the council to be used as an out in Labour's ongoing cycle of crises.' The council concedes the charges are 'unpopular', but said in a report that it is 'reasonable to ask park users to contribute financially to [their] upkeep'. Elsewhere, Forestry England is considering introducing fees at its 130 car parks in the New Forest. Branded 'highly immoral' and a 'penny pinching' tactic by critics, the public body is understood to be eyeing up the parking price plan for next year. It partly blamed the need to charge motorists on 'prolonged bad weather' which has damaged its car parks and increased maintenance bills. A spokesman said: 'Caring for the New Forest has become increasingly expensive in recent years. This includes the price of vital materials needed to repair and maintain the car parks that have increased by more than 50pc over the last three years. 'At the same time, higher levels of damage to trails and car parks have been caused by prolonged bad weather and increasing usage.' Forestry England said less than 20pc of its funding comes from the Government. The spokesman added: 'We need to raise the majority of funds for car parks, trails and all of the work we do, ourselves. A sustainable approach to funding is needed if we are going to be able to continue to do this vital work and provide these facilities.' For those regularly using beauty spot car parks, annual membership with charities and organisations such as the National Trust, RSPB and Forestry Commission continues to be the most cost-effective option. Locations such as the White Cliffs of Dover (£6 per car) charge for parking, but the sites are free to use for members. Those looking to save on National Trust annual membership can purchase a National Trust for Scotland annual pass for £74.40, and still benefit from the parking perks in the rest of the UK. This is £22 cheaper than buying traditional National Trust membership.
The Independent
21-05-2025
- The Independent
Calls for wider access to nature after Supreme Court ruling on Dartmoor camping
Campaigners and MPs have called for greater public freedom to wild camp across the UK after the Supreme Court ruled that the public has the right to camp on Dartmoor. Five justices unanimously ruled on Wednesday that the term 'recreation' in the law governing the use of the national park in Devon – the only national park where wild camping is allowed – is used 'without qualification as to the form which it should take'. Two landowners, Alexander and Diana Darwall, had challenged a Court of Appeal ruling, which said the law allows the public to camp on the Dartmoor commons provided bylaws are followed, at the UK's highest court. The couple said they were 'disappointed' by the judgment, while the chief executive of the Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA), which opposed the challenge, said he was 'delighted and relieved'. Following the ruling, Guy Shrubsole, co-founder of campaign group Right to Roam, said he was 'elated' and called for changes to the law around wild camping. He said: 'What I think this case has also really highlighted is how unusual and odd it is that Dartmoor is the only place where there is a legal right to wild camp in England and Wales. 'Over in Scotland, over the border, there is a right to wild camp almost everywhere, and so that's why we are now really keen for the Government to take note of this, of a huge amount of public interest this case has stirred up, to see the public support for the right to wild camp and to extend the law. 'We want them to change the law now, so that actually people in England can enjoy the right to wild camp, the right to roam over much more of our beautiful countryside.' He continued: 'Thousands on thousands of people wild camp every year on Dartmoor, without anybody knowing that they're there, without leaving a trace, and often picking up litter afterwards. 'Often the trace that is left is the trace on people's hearts and minds and souls when they undertake this wonderful experience of sleeping under the stars on Dartmoor and seeing the world.' Calls for changes to the law were echoed by South Devon Liberal Democrat MP Caroline Voaden and Bolton West Labour MP Phil Brickell, who both attended the Supreme Court on Wednesday. Ms Voaden said she was 'absolutely thrilled' with the decision, but added that the public only have access to 8% of land in the UK. 'It just proves that the right to access is fundamental for people to be able to live a healthy, happy life,' she said. 'It's not just a nice-to-have – we need access to nature, and we've now seen that we have the right to wild camp on Dartmoor, and the stars are for everyone.' She continued: 'The right piece of legislation now is the legislation that covers national parks, and looking at that, and looking at how we can define wild camping in law, so it's clearly defined, and then try and expand it to other national parks in the UK.' Dartmoor National Park, designated in 1951, covers a 368-square-mile area which features 'commons' – areas of unenclosed, privately-owned moorland where locals can put livestock. The case concerned the interpretation of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, which says 'the public shall have the right of access to the commons on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation' on the commons. In January 2023, High Court judge Sir Julian Flaux ruled that the 1985 Act did not allow people to pitch tents overnight on the Dartmoor commons without landowners' permission. But the Court of Appeal overturned the decision in July that year after a challenge by the DNPA, with three senior judges ruling that the law 'confers on members of the public the right to rest or sleep on the Dartmoor commons, whether by day or night and whether in a tent or otherwise'. Mr and Mrs Darwall keep cattle on Stall Moor, which forms part of their more than 3,450-acre estate in the southern part of the national park. Their lawyers told the Supreme Court last October that some campers cause problems to livestock and the environment, and that the law only gives the public access on foot and horseback. Timothy Morshead KC, for the couple, also said in written submissions that they were 'not motivated by a desire to stop camping on Dartmoor', but had 'concerns about the damage that wild camping can cause and, in particular, about the significant risk of fire associated with it'. Richard Honey KC, for DNPA, said in his written submissions that the phrase 'on foot' means 'the access to the commons should be pedestrian and not vehicular'. He also labelled the suggestion that erecting a tent could damage land and vegetation 'absurd'. Lords Sales and Stephens ruled that the law would make 'no sense' if the right of recreation given to the public was 'limited in the manner contended for' by the Darwalls, and that the concept of 'open-air recreation' was 'wide'. In a ruling backed by Lord Reed, Lady Rose and Lady Simler, they continued: 'It is not confined to recreation taken by means of walking or riding.' They also said the law gives protection to landowners through 'public regulation of the use of the commons' such as bylaws, which they said are 'in practice likely to be more effective in protecting the land' than taking private legal action. Following the Supreme Court's judgment, the Darwalls said: 'We are disappointed by the Supreme Court's judgment. 'Our aim from the outset was to protect and preserve Dartmoor, its flora and fauna. 'Landowners and farmers have always played a vital part in the conservation of Dartmoor. 'Hollowing out the role of landowners and farmers will not improve the vitality of the Dartmoor commons.' Dr Kevin Bishop, chief executive of the DNPA, said the ruling allows the organisation to 'look forward and to work together for the good of Dartmoor'. He said: 'The judgment reaffirms our long-held belief for the public's right to backpack camp on certain commons and, importantly, our role in regulating and managing that access. 'It is important to note that it is not a blanket right to camp wherever, or do whatever, you want. 'With the right comes a responsibility to make sure that you tread lightly and leave no trace.' Nature minister Mary Creagh said: 'Wild camping under the stars is one of life's great pleasures, so I welcome today's ruling which upholds that right on Dartmoor's common land. 'This Government is passionate about bringing people closer to nature by creating nine national river walks and three new national forests.' The Government has previously said it will create nine new national river walks, plant three new national forests and create a community right to buy to allow residents to create parks and green spaces. It has also said it is completing the 2,700-mile King Charles III England Coast Path, which will be the longest waymarked and maintained coast walking route in the world, and continuing a £16.5 million fund to make landscapes more accessible.
