Bob Mehew
Well-known member
graham said:Did you also ask what the implications for current access agreements would be if it were to apply? Did you ask whether sites being scheduled as SSSI's or, indeed under any other conservation legislation, might be treated differently to those that were not? Do you ask whether such arrangements might be open to challenge? And if so, who by?
Did you ask how the legal constraints on commercial groups - which are not covered by CRoW - might be handled in the event of other constraints being removed?
Did you ask how we might go forward in protecting our more delicate and scientifically important sites if co-operation with Natural England was lessened in any way?
As I have indicated, we kept our question focused on what the phrase "...on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation..." in Sec 2(1) means in law. We did not have the time to move onto dealing in detail with the potential implications given we only were told she was available on 4 June and required our material to be delivered this week. Nor did I feel the offer given to us would wish to extend to cover subsidiary matters of the type that that you mention.
But I can positively comment for what it is worth and as you probably already are aware, commercial groups are caught by Para 1(t) of Schedule 2 which prohibits persons "engages in any activity which is organised or undertaken (whether by him or another) for any commercial purpose". However, I will add that I presume you are aware of para 12 in https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69558/pb13765-info-note-crwa-gen-restictions.pdf which I came across during the research we did. ACI are aware of it.
I would hope that by entering into a sensible dialogue in a prompt manner we will maintain and enhance our cooperation with NE. My concern has been all along that if BCA does not move in a prompt way, then cooperation might well be lost or reduced.