This article from the September 1994 issue of Kent Area News
outlines the development of our policy on paths obstructed by
orchards.
Core of the Matter
Mike Temple Gets the Pip Over a Problem with
Orchards
An
apple a day might be good advice, but not when they are grown
across public footpaths.
Ramblers in Kent have, perhaps for too long, been putting up
with country paths blocked by orchards, hop fields and fruit
bushes. For years, farmers have been planting these crops without
regard for public rights of way and, for some extraordinary
reason, not a great deal of fuss has been made about it. Ramblers,
on the whole, are fairly tolerant people and perhaps have been
more willing to walk round an orchard than a field of wheat
without complaint.
But times have changed, and so have farming practices. Whereas
it was often possible to thread one s way through a traditional
orchard where trees grew high, fruit was picked from ladders, and
the lower branches did not totally obstruct the path, these days
trees are shorter, are more densely packed, and permit fruit
picking from the ground No way can you now get through.
It so happens that over the past year, a number of diversion
applications have been made by landowners who wish to divert paths
after having blocked them by illegal planting. The question that
arises is 'should the landowner be excused for obstructing the
path by agreeing to a diversion, or should we insist that the path
be reinstated even if it means pulling out several hundred trees?'
Opinions amongst our footpath secretaries in Kent have differed
markedly. Purists say the law is the law, and it should be
enforced at all times. Others take a more lenient view and, whilst
not excusing landowners who deliberately obstructed the paths in
the first place, feel that to insist that many hundreds of trees
be grubbed out to reinstate the definitive line would only heap
opprobrium upon the RA and damage our public image.
|
An appeal to our National Executive sent them into deep thought for
some six months. Indeed, one had the impression that they were
having difficulty in getting a hand round the problem. But a
moment's reflection suggested that perhaps orchards were outside
their experience since none grow north of the Wandsworth Road where
all good NEC members live.
Eventually they decided that where any orchard had been planted
within the previous 5 years, then we should demand reinstatement on
the definitive line. Over 5 years, then we should negotiate a
diversion, but this should only be the minimum necessary to overcome
the problem.
And this is not all. Farmers naturally want diversions to run
round the edge of orchards and, in some cases, this has resulted in
applications for a zig-zag route. The trouble with this is that not
only is it unpleasant but if, in the future, orchards are grubbed
out and returned to arable farming, a frequent conversion in recent
years as market competition forces growers out of fruit, then we
would be left with that zig-zag jigging its way through the
countryside quite illogically to those without knowledge of its
history.
Both Kent Area' s Footpaths Sub-Committee and the Area Executive
have debated this issue, and a set of guidelines drawn up which
attempts to navigate something of a middle line. We have rejected
the concept of a 5 year time period since this appears to condone an
illegal practice in certain circumstances, but are willing to
negotiate minor diversions to minimise the destruction of trees. We
will also consider accepting permissive paths on a temporary basis
so long as there is an undertaking that the definitive line will be
restored when the orchard is replanted KCC are also being encouraged
to circulate farmers with a strong reminder of their obligations in
the same way as was done over the matter of ploughing.
These guidelines will be circulated to all our footpath
secretaries.
If you are not already a member of the Ramblers, please join
us to support our continuing work to protect and improve walking opportunities
in Kent.
|