MADONNA and her husband Guy Ritchie claimed victory yesterday after a planning inquiry refused to allow ramblers access to her country estate.
The Countryside Agency had designated large parts of the couple’s estate as “open downland” across which anyone has access under “right to roam” legislation.
But the pop star and her film director husband claimed that the land was agricultural, not open, and that if the agency was successful, sightseers could approach within less than 100 yards of their home.
A planning inspector ruled yesterday that 15 of the 17 plots of land the agency wanted opened up should remain private. Ramblers will be allowed access to only two of the plots, one of 50 hectares, on the edge of the Ashcombe House estate on the Dorset-Wiltshire border.
Philip Eddell, the land agent for Madonna and Guy Ritchie, said the result was a victory for the couple. He said that the public may not even be allowed access to those the inspector said should be open.
Advertisement
He said: “We won 15 out of 17 and the two parcels that we lost are the farthest two from the house. It’s fair to say that we are very pleased, but the process is still going on.
“The final maps will not be drawn up until next year and for land management reasons it might still be able to keep people off the land for part of the year or the whole year.
“Land management reasons could mean for people’s own safety while shoots are in progress or for conservation reasons or if there is a rare breed or bird there.”
He added: “We are not anti-rambler and people have always been able to walk on the land along public rights of way.”
The Ritchies paid £9 million for the 18th-century house and its estate which were once owned by the society photographer Cecil Beaton.
Advertisement
Their agent told the planning inquiry in Shaftesbury that the couple intend to restore it as a working farm and shoot and that 47 jobs would be at risk if they lost their appeal.
The planning inspector David Pinner said he had not needed to consider the couple’s contention that allowing the public access to their home would be an infringement of their “right to privacy” as the two plots are well away from the main house.
A spokeswoman for the Ramblers’ Association said it was satisfied with the inspector’s decision. Sharon Woods said: “We are very pleased that one of the two parcels of land that will be opened up is about 50 hectres, which is quite a size. More people will be able to visit and see more of the countryside which can only be a huge benefit to the public.
“The other parcels of land that have not been declared open country are those that are closer to the main house. We accept the decision by the planning inspectorate not to open up those areas.”
But hundreds of other landowners are also contesting “right to roam” maps drawn up by the Countryside Agency.
Advertisement
Many are threatening to withdraw voluntary agreements which have allowed walkers and riders to use their land for years if they are forced to open up new areas for public access.
Mark Hudson, president of the Country, Land and Business Association (CLA), which represents 40,000 landowners, said: “We have long been aware of the inconsistencies and inaccuracies of the mapping process.”
He has hundreds of members willing to open up their land as long as it is not too close to their house. It is the “indiscriminate” right to roam which is causing concern, though in some cases the mapping of down, heath, moor and mountain which is included in the “right to roam” is wrong.
Some landowners are also angry that there has been no negotiation with the agency about land to be included in the mapping process so that long-established local agreements with ramblers’ groups can be recognised.
The Earl of Lytton, John Lytton, who owns the 1,000-acre Lillycombe estate on Exmoor, said his family had allowed walkers on many parts of his land for years.
Advertisement
“They walk on improved grassland. Ironically under the law this is not right to roam land. The Countryside Agency maps, however, want to open up a piece of land which already has a foot and bridle path on it and which is so steep that no one has ever wanted to walk on.“
He is now appealing against the agency map. He said: “I and many landowners are not against people walking our land but this process does not respect agreements that have operated for many years.
He said: “I think this way of going about things will cause untold damage in the long term. We will also have to consider whether we are voluntarily going to provide access to other parts of the estate.”