Ivan: 0:00

Hello and welcome again to The Bench Report. You're listening to Amy and Ivan. Today we're going to look closely at the recent discussions happening in the UK Parliament about wild camping. This follows quite a significant Supreme Court decision. We'll explore what this all means for accessing nature and some of the challenges that come with it.

Amy: 0:22

Absolutely. Our aim is really to clarify where things stand right now with wild camping. You know, what does it mean for enjoying our national parks? And also to untangle some of the important differences being debated. We want to offer some clear insights on that balance between access and protecting the environment.

Ivan: 0:40

Okay, so let's dive in with the big news that really kicked this off. The Supreme Court upheld the public's right to Wild Camp on Dartmoor. And the government seemed quite pleased with this outcome, didn't they? Acknowledging how important outdoor access is.

Amy: 0:53

They did. But what's really interesting about Dartmoor isn't just the ruling itself. It's why it's seen as such a success. This wasn't something that happened overnight. It comes from years of, well, let's call it good practice and working together.

Ivan: 1:04

Good practice. What does that involve?

Amy: 1:06

It involved developing a really clear camping code, creating detailed maps showing exactly where camping was allowed, and crucially, working very closely with the landowners and park authorities.

Ivan: 1:18

Ah. So it was collaborative.

Amy: 1:19

Exactly. This whole approach, it kind of turned potential problems into a solution that everyone could more or less get behind. It's a model, really.

Ivan: 1:28

Right. Dartmoor sounds like a positive example then. But the question on many people's minds must be, does this win pave the way for more? Is the government now looking at extending this right to wild camp across all national parks?

Amy: 1:41

Well, the government's current stance is that they have no plans to guarantee wild camping across every single national park. The main reason is practicality. Each park is different landscapes, different pressures.

Ivan: 1:52

So what works in one place might not work in another.

Amy: 1:54

Precisely. So the idea is to let each park authority decide what's appropriate for their specific area. Take the Lake District, for example. They allow camping, but it's quite specific. Usually high up, away from roads, for just one night and you must leave no trace.

Ivan: 2:10

Leave no trace. That brings us to a key point responsibility. How do we make sure people understand the difference between proper wild camping in permitted or remote areas and just illegal camping?

Amy: 2:23

There's sometimes a misunderstanding, isn't there? That national park means you can just set up a tent anywhere, maybe even near someone's garden.

Ivan: 2:30

That distinction is vital, and it leads to the question, what happens when camping is irresponsible? Because it does happen. We see problems like people ignoring very clear signs, no camping, no fires, and the rubbish left behind, especially during the height of the pandemic, was quite shocking sometimes. Tents, litter.

Amy: 2:48

And fires, you mentioned fires. Disposable barbecues seem to be a major issue.

Ivan: 2:53

A huge issue. They can cause massive environmental damage. Think about the Thursley Common Fire back in 2020. That destroyed a huge section of a really valuable nature reserve. Peatland fires are incredibly damaging and hard to put out.

Amy: 3:04

So what are the authorities actually doing about this kind of irresponsible behavior? The government's approach is twofold, really. First, promoting the countryside code, encouraging everyone to follow those basic guidelines for respect and safety. And second, empowering local authorities, giving them the power to ban things like disposable barbecues or sky lanterns in specific high risk zones. There's already legislation that allows for controls on fires in these protected landscapes.

Ivan: 3:31

It sounds like a constant balancing act.

Amy: 3:33

It really is. On one hand, there's a clear desire to increase access to nature. The government wants more people, especially perhaps those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to experience the outdoors. But on the other hand, there are very real safety concerns.

Ivan: 3:47

Safety concerns, like getting lost.

Amy: 3:50

Yes. Mountain rescue teams are called out pretty much daily across England and Wales. And often it's to help people who are, frankly, completely unprepared for the conditions. You hear stories of people trying to climb mountains in flip-flops without maps.

Ivan: 4:02

Wow. So promoting access needs to go hand in hand with education about safety and preparedness.

Amy: 4:07

Absolutely. It shows the complexity. You want people to enjoy these places, but safely and without damaging the very environment they've come to see. It's a tough challenge.

Ivan: 4:16

So wrapping this up, it seems the whole conversation circles back to finding that essential balance, balancing public access, proper environmental protection, and crucially, responsible behavior from all of us who use these amazing natural spaces.

Amy: 4:31

And perhaps a final thought for you listening. Think about your own actions when you're out in nature, even the small things. How do they fit into this bigger picture of access and conservation? What responsibility do you feel personally for helping preserve these places for everyone now and in the future?

Ivan: 4:47

As always, find us on social media at BenchReportUK. Get in touch with any topic important to you. Remember, politics is everyone's business. Take care.