The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has recently delivered a significant ruling that reinstates the legal right to wild camp on Dartmoor, a national park located in Devon. This decision is poised to provoke a resurgence of discussions surrounding public access to private lands in England, highlighting the intricate balance between individual rights and land stewardship. The case centered around a dispute between landowners, Alexander and Diana Darwall, and individuals advocating for the right to camp without prior permission on their expansive property measuring approximately 4,000 acres.
Judges unanimously dismissed an appeal brought forth by the Darwalls, maintaining that public rights, as established by the Dartmoor Commons Act of 1985, allow for activities including camping. Under this statute, the text clearly states that “the public shall have a right of access to the commons on foot and horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation.” The judges interpreted this language as “open-ended and unqualified,” ultimately determining that it inherently includes camping as a permissible activity within the confines of Dartmoor National Park, which has been officially designated since 1951.
Dartmoor stands out as an exceptional case in England where wild camping is permitted due to specific legislative provisions. Generally, wild camping on private land in England is not allowed unless express permission is granted by landowners. This court judgment therefore marks a pivotal moment for proponents of wider access rights, underpinning the arguments from groups like the Right to Roam campaign, which has long advocated for the extension of such rights beyond Dartmoor.
This legal tumult began in 2022 when the Darwalls contested the long-acknowledged right to camp on their land. After the Court of Appeal overturned an earlier High Court decision in July 2023 affirming the public’s right to camp, the landowners sought intervention from the Supreme Court. The recent ruling not only restores the right to wild camp but also emphasizes the broader implications surrounding land use and public access. Importantly, the Supreme Court judges stressed that the existing frameworks for public regulation would likely provide more effective protection for Dartmoor’s land than individual landowners attempting to enforce their rights directly against campers.
Following the pronouncement, enthusiasm was palpable among advocacy groups and environmentalists. Dr. Kevin Bishop, Chief Executive of the Dartmoor National Park Association, expressed his satisfaction with the ruling, categorizing it as a landmark decision not just for Dartmoor but for access rights nationwide. He emphasized the importance of responsible use of the land and the necessity for campers to “tread lightly and leave no trace.”
Amidst the approval, concerns were voiced regarding potential consequences of increased access. The Darwalls, through their representative Timothy Morshead KC, reiterated their commitment to preserving the land and highlighted worries regarding the damage that wild camping might cause, particularly the risks associated with fire.
The dialogue surrounding the ruling extends into concerns over how such rights should be managed. Caroline Voaden, a Liberal Democrat MP for South Devon, hailed the decision as a validation of the need for access to nature, reinforcing the belief that such access is fundamental for a healthy life. It reflects a growing sentiment that connects mental well-being and natural experiences.
Campaigners like Guy Shrubsole have expressed fervent delight at the ruling while calling for a broader expansion of wild camping rights across England and Wales. The Supreme Court’s decision is anticipated to serve as an impetus for further legal and legislative avenues that favor greater public access to the natural milieu.
As the discourse progresses, stakeholders from both sides recognize the necessity for ongoing dialogues and collaborative frameworks to ensure that the rights of public access are upheld while balancing the concerns of landowners. The eyes of many will turn toward how this ruling influences legislation regarding access to the natural environment in England and the potential for future lawmaking that safeguards public enjoyment of the countryside while respecting the rights and responsibilities of landowners.