UKH

Policy decisions by both the Conservative Government and Labour opposition in recent days have put in doubt the prospect of a significant improvement to public access in England. But despite setbacks, many campaigners continue to call for a Scottish-style Right to Roam.

Read more

Experienced this yesterday when asked to leave when walking along on a fenced concrete farm track  miles from the actual farm. So no RTR here in Devon!

Much as I'd love to see English access laws move closer to the Scottish approach, if Labour do conclude that it isn't high enough up the priority list to be a sensible addition to their next manifesto, I wouldn't be too dismayed. A genuinely significant change would clearly be a big piece of work for any government to take on, with lots of careful thought required, lots of stakeholders to be consulted and lots of political capital spent. The scale of problems for Labour to fix in the next Parliament is astonishing, and despite a personal bias towards access changes that might benefit me, I think a lot of those problems realistically have to be considered more urgent and more important.

Sadly, I'm inclined to agree with you. The Tories seem to have ruined the country over the past 13 years far more effectively than they ever have done before

I think they are in danger of removing all of the policies that make people want to vote for them and relying on people voting against the Tories.

Living in a somewhat marginal seat I will still vote for them as it's either labour or a Tory who has never once broken the whip and has had nothing to say about government dithering on selecting an SMR design (which has potential to contribute to both energy/ environment and levelling up policy briefs) rather than championing the one which is based in her own city (I think it is in an adjacent constituency by half a mile or so).

Yeah, I do actually share that concern more generally, though I probably shouldn't go into it too much for fear of derailing the thread entirely with the standard argument about the merits or otherwise of an entirely centre ground platform. But on the particular topic of access, my agreement with the decision would depend on the reasoning behind it.

If the argument for ditching the access policy is, "sounds a bit radical, better not scare anyone off" or "it's the wrong path to take, CROW was enough", then I disagree. But if it is about making best use of the limited time available to parliament and ministers to focus on what's most urgent and important, I find that much harder to argue with. To me, wholesale changes to access legislation seem like a thing to spend time on when the country is already basically heading in a good direction, with a sound economy and functional public services. We're certainly not there.

This is off topic but I feel posting a news article titled "Political U-Turns Paint Bleak Picture for English Access" is inflammatory, and sabotages the essence of what UKC/UKH news represents. By posting such an article, the authors must realise it will create inevitable political debate. There is no doubt this news is valuable and important, as is the ensuing debate, but I feel it would be best placed in a different topic category. Would UKC/UKH be open to the idea of creating a politics topic for the forums?  This would enable those interested to engage, and those who are not, to deselect that topic from their feed. 

InC

I see your point about prioritising but I'm not sure I agree that land access isn't an important enough problem. There is a staggering amount of evidence to suggest that increased access to natural spaces has massive positive effects on mental and physical health which I'm sure would have a pretty big economic as well as social benefit.

I agree that access is probably best addressed when there is sufficient ministerial time to deal with it properly, if they try and address everything in the next parliament they probabaly won't do anything very well and there are other things which are going to take a hell of a lot of ministerial time to address.

I suspect that any government which is able to address the various crises that are already threatening/ will threaten in the next 5 years would go down in the history books alongside that of Attlee (which would be no bad thing).

Genuinely struggling to see this as complex; Cut-and-paste the legislation used in Scotland and apply here. 90% of UKC members are in favour, and we know landowners, farmers and the rich are against it, so there is no need to “engage” with them; Just do it.
This is such an easy, quick win for Labour.

Oh boy do I have some news for you

Great article, Dan, and a great summary - I was going to try and write something similar myself but you beat me to it.

Interesting thoughts in this thread regarding the primacy of legislation.

Accepting that there is a hell of a mess to untangle for whoever wins the next election (presumably that will be Labour), we have been told in Wales for years that there is no legislative slot and that access reform is not a priority. This despite much of the groundwork already having been laid by an enormous review completed back in 2021 with buy-in from a host of stakeholders.

What I feel is the best argument that we need to get this done, and get it done now, is that more access helps solve many of the well-documented issues that we suffer. As a country we are as disconnected from nature as any other western country on the planet (actually we are the most). Solving this would go some way towards improving our wellbeing and health, reducing pressure on the NHS, breathe life into our stricken rural communities and economies. It's also well documented (and this was quoted by Labour in the first instance of supporting Right to Roam) that nature connection influences environmental consciousness and stewardship positively. We have evidence of all the above. The potential is vast - we are trying to make this argument very loudly!

It is true thought that the battleground has moved in recent months from inner cities and towns to the newly-contestable rural seats where this is far more of a wedge issue (62% of the general electorate support a right to roam so it is a vote winner everywhere else). I was speaking to a labour insider last week and it seems that the recent electoral success and greedy eye of the party was our downfall on this policy (although realistically not many of us dared hope there wouldn't be a u-turn very soon).

There are also many departments of government and they are usually all working on different things at once. In Wales we are increasing the size of our Senedd so hopefully they'll be able to get more done.

We've been waiting on a response to a proposal to trial wild camping on Welsh Government owned land (suggested by the minister) for more than a year now.

I am very much in favour of Right to Roam and for anyone with an interest Nick Hayes book is essential reading https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/10/the-book-of-trespass-by-nick-.... He is far far more eloquent more than me, but one of the many important points he makes is that the English (being English I cannot comment for anyone else) have an emotional relationship with property rights, and I am surprised that 62% are in favour of Right to Roam, as TBH, I am not sure that many people really understand what the concept means. One of things one hears is "ah but you would not want anyone camping in your back garden" which is a deliberate conflation by the landowners of a 30' x 30' garden with a 16000 acre estate.
After reading the Trespass, I had a real epiphany when walking along a PROW, when it struck me that the PROW was not telling me where I could go, but rather, telling me where I could not.
Another strong moment was when visiting Powys Castle prior to a trip to India to understand the relationship of the UK with India and other colonies, and it is pretty shameful, in fact I felt ashamed. But as I came down a set of stairs, I noticed a Man Trap, a huge spring loaded thing that would trap a Man around the waist and probably decapitate a child, and I thought hang on a moment. The general population of the UK were treated by Landowners as badly as they could get away with, the colonisation of the world was just an extension to the project of The Enclosures and other Land Grabs, by the powerful. I have nothing to be ashamed of, other than the fact I have not the guts to take a Bulldozer and drive through an Aristocrats wall, straight across his land (it is usually but not always a him) and straight through his tax fiddle funded mansion.

Sorry bit of a rant there, but do read Trespass, or maybe not, as you will never look at the landscape in the same way again, it can make one angry.

I'm a big fan of Nick, that book was pretty eye-opening to me as an access volunteer at the time.

That 62% stat was from a YouGov survey and I was likewise surprised that it was so high.

I'd also highly recommend books like Wild Fell by Lee Schofield, The Trespasser's Companion (also Nick Hayes), A Right To Roam/Theft of the Countryside by Marion Shoard, Walking Class Heroes by Roly Smith, Shaping the Wild by David Elias, Who Owns England by Guy Shrubsole, and Inglorious by Mark Avery. They all tell a vivid story of enclosure, nature depletion, activism, and setbacks set over many centuries. We are lucky to be standing on the shoulders of giants when it comes to the long fight for access but there is more to be done and we always need to arm people with the right information as you say. I would wager that understanding among even the climbing community of what CRoW actually is and what it does for us is quite low, not to mention more obscure definitions and bylaws. 

In the coming months I'm hoping to get some of these authors and other campaigners to speak to me on a BMC Podcast speaking about access and the work that has been/is being done on this. Just generally I think we need to be doing more to communicate that access is more than just a negotiation between you and a landowner, or a seasonal bird ban (although they are key tenets from a BMC POV).

Something I found interesting was being told what a stile or a gate in a fence or a wall which I pass through when travelling a PROW is actually for.

I thought the stile or gate was to allow me to pass along the PROW, but I was incorrect. The Stile or Gate is there to allow the landowner to have the wall or fence pass over the PROW. Two very different concepts. Once it is seen like this one has very different perception of a badly maintained stile or gate.

I shall add you book suggestions to my reading list, which already includes Shrubsole book about Rainforests. But possibly I should be buying a book about how to drive a Bulldozer.

Exactly. The ideal PROW from the point of view of the path user has no gates or stiles across it

Indeed. There are pretty strong presumptions in favour of the PROW user regarding keeping the route clear (otherwise the user is entitled to make their way by the nearest & least damaging route) and that changes to the PROW should tend towards improving accessibility (can't replace a gate with a style sort of thing.) 

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the rules and regs are "interesting" but having had a few face-to-face moments and puzzles here in Staffs, I've found it worthwhile to look into it. Examples of dead-end PROW are commonplace, one notable one goes across the main runway of a small airfield for example. Marooned PROW - you have to trespass to get to them. PROW that the landlord clearly wishes weren't, or where they're basically being delinquent about bridge repairs but the council hasn't got resources to enforce... all sorts of faintly peculiar scenarios. 

I'm disappointed by the Labour decision, but my hope is that in fact it works in favour of access issues, by allowing the thing to blow up into a crisis that attracts protest and action rather than codifying some sort of deal with landowners. Hope - not expectation. 

Another thumbs up for Nick Hayes and Mark Avery. 

Y

Whilst the Scottish legislation provides a model, and redrafting it to suit English law would probably not be difficult, the Bill would still need to go through Parliament and that means following proper Parliamentary procedures, which includes proper consultation. 

The difference with Scotland is that there the legislation was only putting onto a statutory basis what everyone had always understood were long-established legal rights. In England and Wales this would be introducing an entirely new set of rights and overturning the laws of trespass. That is inevitably going to be more controversial, and even those who are in favour of the principle might have reasonable concerns over whether people will exercise access rights responsibly and how this might be enforced.  It may not be complex, but it wouldn't be as straightforward as you suggest.

Some sensible points. I still support the BMC line on this: that adapting the Scottish model is still the best solution but also in saying that acknowledges such rights come with responsibilities and landowners need protection against bad behaviour as well.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/the-future-of-access-rights

Just ordered a copy of that after reading this thread, thanks for the recommendation - and to Eben for the others, I'll get to them!

Forgive some nerdishness here but I think one aspect of the report suggesting that "no path will be able to be added to the definitive map" is a bit misleading. The definitive map of public rights of way can be modified in various ways. It is open to anyone to 'claim' that a public right of way should be added to the map on the grounds of user or based on historic evidence. User evidence has to be sufficient to establish that members of the public have used the claimed route for an uninterrupted period of at least 20 years "as of right". The evidence is usually in the form of witness statements. This will not change. The second method, which relies on historic claims - based on old maps, historic documents etc. - will no longer be accepted after the new deadline of 1st Jan 2031.

Public rights of way can also come into existence through a creation order (not much used) or agreement between the local highway authority and the landowner, both mechanisms provided under the Highways Act 1980.  These mechanisms will remain unchanged.

Responsibility by all is at the core of the SOAC:

https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/act-and-access-code/scottish-outdoo...

I know as it's a point made in the BMC linked article I provided, but thanks for the useful re-emphasis.

Quite right Ken, thanks for the clarification.

Some more info on the significance of the deadline here from the OSS: https://www.oss.org.uk/environment-minister-breaks-government-pledge-to-sav.... 

I would add the danger of actually making the situation worse. Now that I have a family and do more low level walks I much prefer the English model of clear footpaths to Scotland's model whereby it's theoretically possible to go anywhere but often difficult away from specific maintained paths on nature reserves for example. Open access is obviously better for climbers and other outdoor enthusiasts, however for people who just want to go for a walk I struggle to see how it would be a good thing even if it might sound good in theory. 

And that's without even the fact that it is a very good thing for nature that the public, especially dog owners do not have access to some areas of land.

I don't see any reason why more open access would lead to existing maintained paths going away. There are still plenty of marked and well-maintained old rights of way across CROW land. And there have also always been rights of way that only exist on the map with no discernible path on the ground.

We have a lot of clear footpaths in Scotland, just like in England. Many of them are marked clearly on maps. A lot of mountains have very clear footpaths - indeed, this does bring its own problems regarding erosion, but that is a separate issue. I don't really understand your objection. 

Every time this subject comes up, it seems there are numerous objections from people in England who don't appear to want improved access to the countryside, which I find somewhat bizarre. 

I think it's more a matter of recognising that the countryside in England is different from Scotland (less so in Wales) and faces different challenges and practical issues.  Large parts of Scotland are open country which is sparsely populated and where open access works fairly well. England is more densely populated and has far more arable land (around 40% compared with around 8% in Scotland).  Its "wilderness" areas are much smaller, are close to conurbations and under considerably more pressure than most parts of Scotland, with the exception of a few honeypots.

In much of lowland England, which is largely arable, I think a Scottish-style right of access would have very little practical effect. The Scottish Access Code expects you to use paths where possible when crossing land under crops, and I think most users would continue to use our (usually good) network of public footpaths. The alternative of trudging around the margins of huge fields doesn't sound like a good day out to me.

Too often the only option as the official line of the path that crosses fields can sometimes  be a ploughed and become a very muddy battle or sometimes very overgrown (a big issue in Notts as we have a lot of bio mass cornfields). A few local farmers leave a swathe of land for paths crossing fields but more of these are lost every year.

True, but a right to roam wouldn't solve that problem. You already have a legal right to follow the public footpath and the farmer is in the wrong.  It's not a lack of rights but a lack of enforcemement which is the problem.

I'll be honest, I go walking in England so rarely that I don't really care how inadequate the access rights are in England. But what strikes me is how little enthusiasm there seems to be here for improved access rights. Rather than trying to take the good and relevant parts of the SOAC, there often seems more emphasis on finding reasons why England should not have the same benefits as we have north of the border, along with considerable ignorance about how and why it works in Scotland. 

With such passivity, I suspect you will be hindered by inadequate access rights for many years to come. 

I agree. Enforcement isn't going to improve any time soon though. In fact that relates directly to the UKC news item this thread is based on: the government U turn on extending the time for remaining appeals. They know full well that Council services are struggling and massively backlogged due to lack of resources

If the tories were not so anti landowner one might even have suspected a whiff of corruption.

I think there are some people who think that the proposal for England is a general right to roam INSTEAD of a PROW network. I'd like both please!

That's what we have here - only far fewer paths to start with.  I still cannot understand why folk prefer the English system. It is so much easier here, especially if you find walking limited by overindulging on birthdays - if you are lucky it will come to you.  My bikes are a blessing. I frequently visit Herefordshire - having a path network is so handy to a council that loves closing them, and use of a closed path is a criminal offence. You cannot do that here. Just pick a parallel route.

Something few down south understand is that we cannot go where we like when we like in Scotland. Large areas are closed off, but this is the big win, they are only closed when they are growing stuff. Not for ever, just for part of the year.  Also most people in Scotland live in population densities comparable with most of England.  

This to me is one of the key features. Here, we have a presumption of access, unless there are good reasons why access should not be allowed, and as you say, this includes the growing of crops. In England, it seems there is a presumption to refuse access, and access is only allowed grudgingly, if at all. 

I don't think its a question of preferring the English system, which leaves much to be desired. From what I've seen, the main concern seems to be an unjustified fear that a right to roam would replace the public rights of way. That's not going to happen.

I think a Scottish style right to roam would work here, although in many places people will still prefer to use PRoWs.  However Scotland and England are different (as the Scots are keen to remind us) and it is right that we should think about these differences and how the Scottish system might need to be adapted.

I have very mixed views on the subject. My sister is married into the farming community.When you hear about the what I can only describe as idiots who roam free with their dogs off leash without a care in the world creating havoc for farmers, you understand that there is a bit more to this debate. The days of alot of the public understanding gates need to be closed etc, dogs being kept on leash etc etc are long gone. Farmers are rightly cynical over attmept to educate people.

On the other hand I can well understand the Dartmoor battlers on access and right to roam.And I have had a few runs ins in my times with landowners blocking access on paths, bulls in fields where they should not be and so on.

I also think we underestimate how good our path network is in England/ Wales compared with other countries.

Solutions-- no idea.I found Nick Hayes book a bit boring to be honest.

Sadly, that happens north of the border as well. A young friend of mine farms sheep just north of Loch Earn, and she has some horrible stories about dogs killing sheep. As you allude to, there is a issue of public education.

One of the benefits of the SOAC is the requirement of all parties to recognise the rights of all other parties, so landowners and farmers have to recognise that recreational users have rights of access, which may determine how land is used. Equally, recreational users have to recognise that farmers ad landowners rights of use, which may determine how access is allowed, or not allowed. 

The bulls in the field case is interesting. In England, if a bull is in a field with a RoW across it and walkers prefer not to enter the field, their walk may be very disrupted - strictly speaking, they are not simply allowed to go round the outside of the field and their only solution may be to retrace their steps. In Scotland in a similar case, a walker would either skirt the field margins, or choose a different field to cross. 

Last paragraph - erm, nah. In England, if a bull is in a field with a RoW across it the farmer is at fault to start with. If a RoW is obstructed (by a bull, crop or whatever) the walker is within their rights to take the most efficient/least damaging alternative line to get around the obstruction. 

Not that I agree with your argument overall, but no matter. You'd do better if you got the basics right. Yes, for sure, d1ckheads with uncontrolled dogs appear to be ubiquitous. 

Y

As my wife points out to me when there are bulls around, you have to deal with the practicalities and I am a quicker runner than her. ..

I am happy to stand corrected. 

I am actually a landowner. I can assure you that the problems happen anyway. You don't get the sheep worrier owners, dumpers, thieves etc. getting up to no good but respecting English anti access laws. Will never forget Major complaining about allowing land access as it would help burglars.  Well there is no right of access to my house, but that did not stop them.  And we have lost sheep. Something that I have never seen mentioned is the difficulty of losing sheep to dogs belonging to some one further up the blasted social hierarchy in a village. They have always been the worst and love their keep out signs.

Bulls are allowed in fields, depending on the breed.  Never a good idea to run from cattle - game on and your life depends on their brakes.

Aye. Bulls are one thing. It's calves with their mothers that you need to be really wary of...

Y

Yep.  Amazing how many people are killed by them. 
 

Usually dog walkers as I understand it. 

Not wishing to derail this interesting thread but the dog thing does crop up, and even though I have had dogs from an early age, I can understand why livestock farmers may have concerns with dogs not undercontrol.

My perception is that a lot of people have different relationship, with their dog than I ever have, treating them like children to be indulged, they actually speak to them like children, as opposed to giving commands.

Also I wondered if there are more dogs nowadays, and there are, about 3 million more since 2011, 

https://www.pdsa.org.uk/what-we-do/pdsa-animal-wellbeing-report/paw-report-....

That's a lot of dogs.

All a fair point. It’s always a tricky subject. 
 

I think that if you are confident, fit, agile, used to the outdoors and can read a map then you probably prefer the Scottish system. But there are an awful lot of people who want obvious paths, easy to use gates and plenty of signs and waymarks to tell them where to go who probably wouldn't have the confidence to go for a country walk north of the border

Is that the England where you find a 1:25k map and compass extremely useful to find the magic line across the fields.  One of the things I enjoy on the footpaths is the navigational challenge you are sometimes set.

We do have quite a few paths.  Some even have signposts and, on rare occasions, a cafe and a car park.  
 

this discussion reminds me a bit of a lovely evening I once spent in a bar in Brussels with some Romanian guys who were amused that Scotland had satellite TV thinking of it as some scenic but culturally and technologically bereft barren place.  Which would be nicer actually.

Someone (possibly you) mentioned Herefordshire upthread. I agree, navigating round the remoter parts of rural England can be much harder than navigating round parts of Scotland 

Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. When I said "North of the border" I really meant "in the remoter parts of the Highlands"

Living, farming and running on the footpath network in rural Herefordshire I would have to disagree.

If you cannot navigate on the feature rich landscape of rural Herefordshire you won't stand a chance in the on any sort of upland terrain.

Maybe my brain works differently to yours, but I have no issues with 1:50,000 maps in the open hills where being able to interpret contours is the biggest advantage. I struggle more in the lowlands using 1:25,000 maps where I'm forever wondering if I'm on the right side of a hedge or fence!

I have little problem with either and find that 1:25k maps are pretty good at indicating which side of the fence I should be on.

Sadly my errors are usually down to undue haste or poor eyesight

I always find the 'Scotland has an inherently different landscape to England/Wales' argument quite interesting because while true, it's not true of all of Scotland/Wales/England. 

West Lothian and North Lanarkshire are about as built up as most of rural England and the suburbs of Glasgow and Edinburgh more so, and they still have, and enjoy their right to roam there. So yeah, we're different to Scotland but not ALL of Scotland. In Wales we have an incredibly low density country apart from small bits of the south and north east which skew the average by miles.

I have a lot of time for discussions around PRoW and whether we are better off in the rest of the UK than Scotland with our more fleshed out network of paths. In my mind a Welsh or English land reform act would have to have PRoWs and their protection/additional designation at its heart. To my mind, the creation of paths are the main way that farmers respond to rights of way expansion - if you are trying to keep people away from your livestock, maintaining gates, signage, not ploughing over paths is probably your best bet at doing so. I've heard farmers argue that original PRoWs were in fact paths which farmers used to get from place to place back before enclosure was even a thing, and they emerged organically from the rights of common that we used to enjoy.

As someone who is from farming stock (alumni of Clwb Ffermwyr Ifanc Dyffryn Nantlle and veteran of the young farmers rally tug of war), I also really think there's merit to the argument that this would bring people closer to our rural communities and food systems. A major gripe of all farmers.

Not to mention the epidemic of loneliness and advanced age of the farming community (average age of 59!!!). What we're doing isn't working, for anyone.

So what have I been doing wrong for the past 50 years of wandering the upland terrain. Keep trying but cannot seem to get lost?  

Of course I can navigate in Herefordshire, but keeping to the magic lines is the harder bit, and finding the overgrown stiles, if there is one, or the path is not closed by the council.  (let you into a secret, I don't try to hard)

I noticed the mention of 1:25k mapping. Not usually required in the uplands. It was quite a big deal in the early to mid 1980s when up to date 25k mapping arrived. Made life a lot easier.

On the subject of Herefordshire - this is a thing of beauty and may interest some of you.  Not sure if any good at finding footpaths, but features like parallel holloway gullies and borrowpits show up well.

https://storage.googleapis.com/gloucestershire_map/leaflet.html

Great post...thanks.

Well right. They're very different activities. Teaching young people to nav in rural staffordshire is all about distances of 200-500m and relationships to field boundaries. It's fussy, fiddly stuff and unforgiving when the path is not evident (ploughed, not walked regularly and thus overgrown.) 

"High lands" are much easier once you've got your head around contour lines. But of course, the stakes are higher... you can score yourself a horrendous/loose/deadly descent, a river crossing or a £250 taxi ride back to the correct valley...

Plus the series of 1:50K in which the contours were just metricated from the Inch-to-a-mile series or something (not great) and the print in which the Aonach Mor ski tow was shown at the planning location, not the actual location, leading to at least one person going over the edge having taken a distance/bearing plot to the top of Easy Gulley...

Y

Why I am a little sceptical about the advice of taking up orienteering to aid navigation. Usually a very different type of navigation to getting off a hill safely.  There is contour interpretation, but most events you will encounter will have little detail and be mostly ticking off path junctions and distance judgement. Compass use in my experience of the sport was occasional and usually rough orientation of the map.

Mind, when you do hit contours it can be traumatic. I will never forget my first encounter with sand dunes (Merthyr Mawr) or Highland terrain (Alvie).  All very different skills from getting down from a whiteout - and with very different consequences for getting it wrong.

Usually dog walkers who don't let go of the lead, I believe. I am always ready to release my spaniel should cows show too much aggression - they would chase her, and she would run rings around them, leaving me to make good my escape.

The latest Countryside Code advises doing just this, and that message needs to be shared more widely 

I find that most of my navigational difficulties occur on agricultural land, feel quite at home on the hill.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Another voice saying that there is lots of great access/ right to roam literature out there, but for me Nick Hayes, whilst interesting, represents a fringe community and arguing for his ideas wholesale is hardly going to convinced the centre ground of a need for reform. Book of Trespass is OK, if overlong, but Trespassers Companion relies overly on woo and folklore instead of actual facts, which Guy Shrubsole does much better. 

I thought it was dogs off a lead which spooked  cows with their calves. 

Dogs spook cows with calves regardless if they're on a lead or not and the cows will do their best to eliminate that risk by trampling the dog.
If they're on a lead, then the constraining factor to escaping the situation is the human due to their size and lack of agility compared to the dog.
Release the dog and the cows will try and still target the dog - hopefully both human and dog will be OK.
Don't release the dog and the human potentially becomes collateral damage.

Good thing I do not have a dog then…….

The dogs agree... 🙄

What do you win?

Access is shite in Scotland. There are no paths in places like Ayrshire. So you walk into a field. Where next? You don't know where the next gate is or how that links to another field. In any case there will be very few gates at the farm boundary with the next farm. It is completely useless. 

It is certainly necessary to be mote precise on enclosed land in order to avoid things like walking down the wrong side of a hedge.and finding that you need to retrace your steps and return down the other side to find the gate or stile.

Sadly a right to roam would do little to overcome such mistakes.

There are large parts of England where you are expected to stick to the road. Just back 20mins ago from a day out in Ayrshire (of all places) where I went to quite a few interesting places which would need stealth in England and forget about the bike.  Still saw a couple of keep out signs though, but easily ignored.

Cows with calves will see a dog as a threat whether it is on or off the lead. I keep my dog on the lead under very close control but am ready to release her immediately should the cows get aggressive.