Public access — what the scheme requires

Landscape Recovery does not require landowners to grant new public access. The scheme’s rules and the long-term agreement with DEFRA do not contain any obligation to open up new footpaths, dedicate land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW), or provide visitor facilities.

What the scheme does require is that any access provision on a holding stays within the law and within the holding’s existing legal commitments. New access can be agreed where the landowner wants it. It cannot be imposed.

In the round-two applicant guidance, DEFRA describes a “Site Access Plan” as one of the development-phase deliverables (Section 12.1). The plan is asked to identify existing rights of way, permissive access, and accessible areas, and to describe how a project could improve access — for example, by extending existing routes or connecting to local infrastructure.

The Site Access Plan is framed as part of the secondary scoring criteria, not as a mandatory deliverable. DEFRA’s own guidance notes that effects on the environment and on sensitive areas should take priority when access improvements are considered. Funding is not contingent on opening new access — though projects that include access proposals can score higher on social-benefit criteria.

For the Ure Dales scheme, the Site Access Plan is one of six plans agreed per holding. It is negotiated, not imposed. The default is that existing access stays as it is.

The scheme does not change any of the following:

• CRoW Act access on mapped open country and registered common land.Where the public already has a statutory right of access on foot under the CRoW Act 2000 — mountain, moor, heath, down, and registered common land — that right continues. Around 865,000 hectares of England (about 11% of the country) is mapped as access land. Some Ure Dales holdings will include parcels of this land; some will not. The scheme does not extinguish or extend it.
• Existing public rights of way. Footpaths, bridleways, restricted byways, and BOATs (byways open to all traffic) recorded on the definitive map continue exactly as before. The scheme has no power to close, divert, or reroute them, nor any obligation to add new ones.
• Existing permissive access.Where a landowner currently allows access on terms outside the statutory framework — a permissive footpath, a car park, a viewpoint — that arrangement continues to be at the landowner’s discretion. The scheme cannot force its withdrawal or its continuation.
• Tenant access rights. Where the holding is tenanted, any access arrangement that forms part of the tenancy stays in place. The scheme operates above the tenancy layer; it does not interfere with it.

For holdings that include CRoW access land, the existing statutory framework gives landowners and tenants meaningful control without scheme involvement:

• 28 days a year, any reason. Landowners and farm tenants can restrict access for any reason for up to 28 days in any calendar year, subject to the published notification process.
• Dogs on grouse moors, up to five years. A landowner managing land for breeding and shooting grouse can apply a restriction of up to five years on dogs being taken onto the access land.
• Lambing fields, up to six weeks. Fields or enclosures of 15 hectares or less used for lambing can be excluded from CRoW access for up to six weeks in any calendar year.
• Long-term restrictions. Where there is good reason — conservation, dangerous land, livestock welfare, defence — longer-term restrictions can be applied for through Natural England.

None of this changes under the scheme. The CRoW restriction route is independent of Landscape Recovery, and the scheme’s delivery plan does not need to interact with it.

Some Landscape Recovery projects include new permissive footpaths, dedicated access areas, or visitor infrastructure. They do this for two main reasons.

First, certain funder pipelines value access. Lottery-derived funding, parts of the Heritage Fund offer, and several philanthropic foundations look favourably on schemes that bring people into restored landscapes. Adding optional access can broaden the pool of capital a project can draw on. The Ure Dales financial model does not assume any of this funding; it remains optional, holding by holding.

Second, some landowners simply want to. A new permissive route across a holding can be a way to share the work that has gone into restoration, to support the local hospitality economy, or to involve neighbours in the scheme’s long-term legacy. Where the landowner wants this, the scheme can support and document it. Where the landowner does not, the scheme records that and moves on.