ONE of the most vigorously contested issues in the town-v-county struggle of recent years, the right to roam, is now upon us, writes Simon Kirkup of Dickinson Dees.

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, came into force on January 30 and introduces a general right of public access on foot over all mountains (over 600 metres), moorland, heath, down and registered common land.

Excluded are cultivated land, land used for dwellings or housing livestock, land used as parks or gardens, land used for extracting minerals and land used for railways, tramways, golfcourses, racecourses, and aerodromes.

Before the right to roam takes effect, the Countryside Agency has to prepare definitive maps identifying all land that will be available for access. The Act sets out a procedure for publishing draft and provisional maps, with a right of appeal for owners and occupiers.

The preparation and completion of the definitive maps will take about five years.

The Country Land and Business Association, in its negotiations with the Government, managed to secure some important concessions for landowners and occupiers.

As a result, owners and occupiers will be permitted, with certain exceptions, to exclude access for any reason for up to 28 days a year, and to close land for "land management" purposes for longer periods.

One potential problem is that, where several people have a legal interest in the land, 28 days will be the total allocation. For example, if a tenant farmer wants to close land for lambing, those days must be subtracted from the days available to the shooting syndicate.

These restrictions on access are all very well in theory. The question remains as to how they will be enforced. Where a large area is involved, the manpower required to man the boundaries effectively would be ridiculous.

Throughout the debate on the Act there was a lot of concern about what harm dogs might do to game and livestock on access land. As a result, grouse moor owners will be permitted to exclude dogs for up to five years, if that is necessary for the management of their land. and farmers who use land for lambing will be able to exclude dogs for up to six weeks in any year from fields of not more than 15ha.

In addition, there is an overriding rule that, between March 1 and July 31 in any year, dogs must be on leads less than two metres long when near livestock.

The right to roam will not increase owners' or occupiers' liability in relation to either the state of their land or the things done on it.

Occupiers will owe a duty of care similar to that owed to trespassers under the Occupier's Liability Act 1984, which really amounts to a liability for personal injury only.

If, however, there is a known or suspected danger on the land, a walker is entitled to protection from it. For example, concealed holes or shafts should be fenced, and warning notices put up.

Specifically excluded from this duty is any risk resulting from a natural feature of the landscape, or from any water, whether or not it is a natural feature.

For some landowners with land which will be affected by the right to roam, the new Act has appeared disastrous. The odd farmer has felt it necessary to give up farming altogether, and to sell his land as a direct result of the right to roam becoming law, but it is difficult to see how many landowners will actually be adversely affected.

If more people visit the countryside because of the right to roam, those who provide food, accommodation and other services will benefit, but one must doubt whether the right to roam will actually inspire more people to visit the countryside.

There is already an extremely extensive network of footpaths, and there are few walkers who stay indoors at weekends, blaming a shortage of footpaths. Those who enjoy walking in the countryside will continue to do so; those who enjoy sitting watching television will continue to do that.

It is unlikely the right to roam will affect the way ramblers take their exercise. Generally speaking, footpaths follow the most desirable routes from A to B, and certainly it is more comfortable walking along a maintained footpath across open moorland, than to plunge through the tangled heather ten yards to the right or left.

The right to roam is an ill-considered and unnecessary piece of legislation which will involve a massive amount of bureaucracy and administration and will waste an enormous amount of public money.