Introduce a Right to Roam Act for England
Green · what the evidence says
An independent, source-checked look at Green’s policy “Introduce a Right to Roam Act for England” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.
Personal liberty & free speech — Mixed picture
moderate · moderate confidence
A Right to Roam Act would meaningfully expand the freedom of ordinary people to move through land currently off-limits, but it directly curtails the property rights of landowners — both are real O10 effects that pull in opposite directions. The net balance depends on how exceptions are drawn and enforced.
The evidence
- The policy would introduce a new statutory right to access green space in England, modelled on the Scottish approach with exceptions. — greenparty.org.uk (manifesto) — “Introduce a new Right to Roam Act for England, based on the Scottish model with sensible exceptions, to enable people to access green space close to where they live.”
- England's current CRoW Act 2000 provides access to only 8% of the countryside, leaving the large majority of land off-limits to the public. — theguardian.com (media) — “England's Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 provides a more limited "right to roam" on only 8% of the countryside, primarily mountains, moorland, heaths, and downs”
- Significant land types such as woodlands and rivers remain inaccessible under current law. — righttoroam.org.uk (media) — “significant areas like woodlands, rivers, and many grasslands remain inaccessible”
- Scotland's model on which the policy is based gives a statutory right of responsible non-motorised access to most land and inland water. — clarkewillmott.com (media) — “Scotland's Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, which established a statutory "right of responsible non-motorised access" to most land and inland water”
- The Scottish model includes exceptions for private gardens and land adjacent to residential properties, protecting a core privacy right for homeowners. — clarkewillmott.com (media) — “Private gardens and land immediately adjacent to residential properties”
- Landowner groups argue the policy restricts property rights and raises concerns about privacy near their homes. — righttoroam.org.uk (media) — “Landowners express concerns about privacy in areas close to their homes and the potential for public interference with farming operations or exposure to hazards like farm machinery”
- Landowner groups emphasise property rights as a counter-argument to expanded access. — theweek.com (media) — “landowner groups emphasize property rights and the need to protect working landscapes”
- The policy could reduce the average distance to accessible land by 63% for deprived groups, substantially expanding practical freedom of movement. — wcl.org.uk (media) — “potentially reducing the average distance to accessible land by 63% and giving deprived groups access within a 20-minute walk”
Biggest unknown: How broadly or narrowly 'sensible exceptions' are defined in the final legislation will determine whether property-rights restrictions on landowners are targeted or sweeping.
Our reading: O10 covers both the public's freedom of movement and bodily autonomy (the ability to walk through land without state or private restriction) and landowners' property rights against compelled access. This policy pulls hard in both directions simultaneously, making 'mixed' the honest verdict. On the liberty-expanding side: England currently restricts open access to just 8% of countryside (E8), with woodlands, rivers and grasslands remaining legally off-limits (E10). A Right to Roam Act would remove those legal barriers for the general public, directly expanding freedom of movement for millions of people — a clear O10 gain. The Scottish model on which it is based grants a statutory right of responsible non-motorised access to most land (E1), representing a substantive, not merely aspirational, expansion of personal liberty. On the liberty-restricting side: the policy would impose a legally enforceable obligation on private landowners to permit access to their land. Landowners' property rights — the ability to exclude others — are a recognised O10 indicator. Landowner groups explicitly frame this as a property-rights concern (E32), including privacy near residential areas (E27). These are genuine O10 costs, not merely economic ones. The Scottish exceptions (private gardens, residential curtilage — E3) do carve out the most intimate property interests, which limits but does not eliminate the property-rights impact. The extent of the English exceptions will be decisive, but the policy text commits only to 'sensible exceptions', leaving the balance undefined. Both O10 effects are real, material, and backed by cited evidence. This is not false balance — it is a structural feature of access-rights legislation: one group's freedom of movement is purchased partly at the cost of another's property freedom. Hence: mixed, moderate magnitude.
Inequality & fair shares — Helps
minor · moderate confidence
This policy would give poorer and more deprived communities — who currently have the least access to green space — the same rights as wealthier people, narrowing a real inequality in access to nature. The gain is real but modest in the context of income and wealth gaps overall.
The evidence
- The policy would introduce a Right to Roam Act for England based on the Scottish model to enable people to access green space close to where they live. — greenparty.org.uk (manifesto) — “Introduce a new Right to Roam Act for England, based on the Scottish model with sensible exceptions, to enable people to access green space close to where they live.”
- The most affluent areas have significantly more green space than the most deprived, with a fivefold difference reported.
- BAME people are disproportionately concentrated in the most green-space-deprived areas. — vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com (media) — “almost 40% of people from BAME backgrounds living in the most green-space deprived areas, compared to just 14% of white people”
- England's current right to roam covers only 8% of the countryside, leaving large areas inaccessible. — theguardian.com (media) — “England's Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 provides a more limited "right to roam" on only 8% of the countryside, primarily mountains, moorland, heaths, and downs”
- 73% of English woodland is publicly inaccessible. — theecologist.org (media) — “a government-funded study by Forest Research found that 73% of English woodland is publicly inaccessible”
- Expanding the right to roam could reduce the average distance to accessible land by 63% and give deprived groups access within a 20-minute walk. — wcl.org.uk (media) — “potentially reducing the average distance to accessible land by 63% and giving deprived groups access within a 20-minute walk”
- Advocates argue the policy would particularly benefit urban and deprived communities who currently have limited access. — ons.gov.uk (government) — “this would allow millions more people to connect with nature, especially those in urban and deprived areas who currently have limited access”
Biggest unknown: Whether a statutory right translates into genuine usable access for deprived urban communities, or whether practical barriers (transport, cultural familiarity, enforcement) mean the gap in actual use does not close.
Our reading: O14 is about the distribution of gains and losses — whether the gap between richest and poorest narrows. This policy's distributional impact is clear in direction: the current access deficit is concentrated among deprived communities and BAME populations (E17, E18), who stand to gain the most from a universal right. Wealthier people already have greater access to green space and rural land, so a universal right narrows an existing inequality in access. The projected 63% reduction in distance to accessible land for deprived groups (E19) — if realised — would represent a tangible equalisation. The counterfactual is that absent this policy, the 8% open-access ceiling (E8) and 73% woodland inaccessibility (E11) persist, with deprived groups bearing the brunt. That said, the magnitude must be kept honest: this policy does not affect income, wealth, or wages directly. It narrows inequality in access to a public good (green space), which is a real dimension of O14's 'who gains and who pays' test, but it is peripheral to the core Gini-type gaps. The direction is 'improves' — gains are concentrated among those with least — but the magnitude is minor relative to the fundamental's main indicators. Confidence is moderate: the distributional baseline evidence is solid (ONS, government-backed Forest Research), but the projected equalisation effect (E19) comes from campaign-aligned sources (Right to Roam campaign) and should be treated as an upper-bound estimate.
Community cohesion & belonging — Helps
minor · low confidence
Expanding access to green space near where people live could foster shared public spaces that encourage social interaction and a sense of belonging, particularly for urban and deprived communities currently shut out. However, the direct evidence linking a Right to Roam Act to community cohesion measures like social trust or civic participation is thin — most evidence speaks to health and access, not O15 indicators specifically.
The evidence
- The policy aims to enable people to access green space close to where they live, based on the Scottish model. — greenparty.org.uk (manifesto) — “enable people to access green space close to where they live”
- Currently, England's right to roam covers only 8% of the countryside, leaving large areas inaccessible. — theguardian.com (media) — “England's Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 provides a more limited "right to roam" on only 8% of the countryside”
- 73% of English woodland is publicly inaccessible. — theecologist.org (media) — “a government-funded study by Forest Research found that 73% of English woodland is publicly inaccessible”
- 9.6 million people in 1,108 neighbourhoods are deprived of green space. — vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com (media) — “9.6 million people in 1,108 neighbourhoods are deprived of green space”
- BAME communities are disproportionately excluded from green space, with nearly 40% living in the most green-space deprived areas. — vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com (media) — “almost 40% of people from BAME backgrounds living in the most green-space deprived areas, compared to just 14% of white people”
- Advocates argue expanded access would allow millions more people to connect with nature, especially urban and deprived communities. — ons.gov.uk (government) — “Advocates like the Ramblers and the Right to Roam campaign argue this would allow millions more people to connect with nature, especially those in urban and deprived areas who currently have limited access”
- Green spaces offer opportunities for social interaction alongside health benefits. — vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com (media) — “Green spaces offer opportunities for exercise, stress relief, reduced air and noise pollution, and social interaction”
- Expanding the right to roam could reduce the average distance to accessible land by 63% for deprived groups. — wcl.org.uk (media) — “potentially reducing the average distance to accessible land by 63% and giving deprived groups access within a 20-minute walk”
- Some scepticism exists that English users would behave responsibly, potentially undermining the shared-space benefits. — righttoroam.org.uk (media) — “some English farmers express scepticism that the public in England would adequately differentiate between a "right to roam" and a "right of responsible access," leading to irresponsible behaviour”
Biggest unknown: Whether expanded land access translates into meaningful increases in shared social interaction and community belonging at population scale, rather than solitary use, is not established by the available evidence.
Our reading: Community cohesion depends on shared spaces, inter-group contact, civic participation, and a sense of belonging. A Right to Roam Act's most direct O15 pathway is through shared public green space: when previously inaccessible land becomes available to all, people from different backgrounds can encounter each other informally, fostering social interaction and a sense of common belonging to place and nature. The evidence confirms that green spaces facilitate social interaction (E13) and that deprived and BAME communities are disproportionately excluded from such spaces (E18, E39). Reducing the distance to accessible land by up to 63% for deprived groups (E19) could meaningfully shift who participates in shared outdoor life. However, the available evidence does not directly measure social trust, civic participation, or inter-group relations as outcomes of land access reform. The mechanism is plausible — shared public space is an established precondition for informal social contact — but plausibility alone does not earn a strong direction score under this rubric. The Scottish comparator provides contextual confidence but no directly cited O15-specific outcome data here. Concerns about irresponsible use (E33) could undermine goodwill between land users and landowners, creating inter-group friction rather than cohesion, though the policy's 'responsible access' framework and exceptions (E28) are designed to mitigate this. On balance, the direction is a cautious 'improves' at minor magnitude: the policy structurally increases shared access to common land, which is foundational to civic belonging, but the evidence for population-scale cohesion gains is indirect and long-term. Confidence is low because no cited evidence directly measures O15 indicators as outcomes of comparable reforms.
Equal treatment & democratic rights — Helps
minor · low confidence
A Right to Roam Act would create an equal legal entitlement to access green space regardless of background, directly addressing a documented disparity where Black and minority ethnic people and deprived communities have far less access than wealthier, predominantly white groups. The improvement to O9 is real but modest — this is primarily a land-access measure, not a core anti-discrimination or democratic-rights reform.
The evidence
- The policy would introduce a statutory right to access green space for all people in England, modelled on Scotland's approach with defined exceptions. — greenparty.org.uk (manifesto) — “Introduce a new Right to Roam Act for England, based on the Scottish model with sensible exceptions, to enable people to access green space close to where they live.”
- Currently only 8% of the English countryside is legally open-access under existing law. — theguardian.com (media) — “England's Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 provides a more limited "right to roam" on only 8% of the countryside, primarily mountains, moorland, heaths, and downs”
- Black and minority ethnic people are disproportionately excluded from green space, with almost 40% living in the most green-space deprived areas compared to 14% of white people. — vertexaisearch.cloud.google.com (media) — “Black and minority ethnic (BAME) people are twice as likely to live in neighbourhoods with minimal access to green space, with almost 40% of people from BAME backgrounds living in the most green-space deprived areas, com…”
- Expanding the right to roam could reduce the average distance to accessible land by 63% and give deprived groups access within a 20-minute walk. — wcl.org.uk (media) — “Expanding the right to roam could particularly benefit these groups, potentially reducing the average distance to accessible land by 63% and giving deprived groups access within a 20-minute walk”
- 73% of English woodland is currently publicly inaccessible. — theecologist.org (media) — “a government-funded study by Forest Research found that 73% of English woodland is publicly inaccessible”
- Access campaigners view access to nature as linked to addressing historical inequalities in land ownership. — theweek.com (media) — “Access campaigners, like the Right to Roam campaign and the Ramblers, view access to nature as a fundamental right and a means to address historical inequalities in land ownership”
Biggest unknown: Whether the statutory right translates into genuinely equal use in practice depends on enforcement, education campaigns, and whether structural barriers (transport, awareness) for the most disadvantaged groups are also addressed.
Our reading: O9 covers equal treatment — the extent to which people enjoy the same legal entitlements and protections regardless of background. A universal right to roam creates a new equal legal entitlement to green space where currently the law confers access over only 8% of countryside, leaving the majority of land — including 73% of woodland — inaccessible. This legal asymmetry falls hardest on BAME communities and deprived groups, who are measurably more likely to live in green-space-deprived neighbourhoods. A statutory right to roam would, on its face, equalise the formal legal position: everyone, regardless of postcode or ethnicity, would gain the same entitlement. That is a genuine, if narrow, O9 improvement. The magnitude is minor because this is fundamentally a land-access and environmental health measure — it does not touch core anti-discrimination law, voting rights, due process, or minority legal protections. The formal legal equality it creates may also not translate into substantive equality if practical barriers (transport, awareness, confidence) remain. Confidence is low because the projected equity gains rest on advocacy-linked sources (Right to Roam campaign estimates for the 63% distance reduction) rather than independent institutional modelling, and the counterfactual — what proportion of the gap closes — is unquantified by any cited independent body.