Response
to the Countryside Agency
on the Draft Maps of open Country for Wiltshire.
1.
Members
of the Forum considered large areas of land that met the criteria had not been
mapped, for example escarpments in the Pewsey Vale. Also, the Forum identified
some inaccuracies on sites shown in the South Wiltshire Downlands.
2.
Members
are also concerned over the reliability of the methodology used in the mapping
process as some of the information used was out of date. Particular reference
was made to semi improved grassland.
3.
To
the best of our knowledge Registered Common Land has been copied accurately.
4.
It
is accepted that Salisbury Plain Training Area has to be mapped because it fits
the criteria for ‘open country’ although, because it is subject to military
bylaws it will not become access land. However, it is a dominant feature within
Wiltshire and having shown it on the draft maps the Forum is concerned that the
public’s perception of its status may be difficult to manage in future.
5.
The
Forum felt that some access land would be difficult to get to and rather than
negotiating permissive rights to it the easiest solution might be to extend the
boundary to link the areas of access land together, particularly where existing
access is available to one parcel of land but not on adjoining parcels of land.
6.
For
future consultation on remaining mapping areas it would assist other Forums to
form opinions on land identified as “no useful purpose”, if existing rights of
way could be clearly depicted on the draft maps.
7.
The
Forum felt that publicity on the draft maps was adequate but could have been
better however, it is for each individual to make sure their views are known.
8.
The Forum is concerned to know how the walker will know where he or she can
walk? Also how at a local level will the public obtain information of seasonal
closure and restrictions especially the allocation of 28-day closures to
landowners? Clarity was needed on how
access land will be identified on Ordnance Survey and other maps.
9.
The Forum is concerned that the success of the ten-year review of “open
country” will depend on adequate funding of each review.