UK's National Trails at a Crossroads: Funding Cuts, Legal Battles & The Path Forward

Today we explore the critical condition of the UK's 16 National Trails, including the famous Thames Path and Ridgeway. We uncover the immense value these paths provide, contributing £1.8 billion to the economy and £300 million in health savings annually. However, these treasured assets face severe threats from a decade of real-terms funding cuts, a weak legal status compared to National Parks, and increasing damage from climate change and overuse. Listen to understand the key challenges and the simple solutions being proposed to protect these trails for future generations.

Key Takeaways

• Economic & Health Powerhouses: National trails generate significant economic and health benefits but have suffered from a decade of stagnant funding, resulting in a 30% real-terms cut. This is happening even as the trail network is set to double in size.
• Lack of Legal Protection: Unlike National Parks, trails lack a "statutory purpose." This means they have a lower status in legislation and are less protected from development and other threats.
• Growing Physical Threats: The trails face numerous challenges, including path closures like the Marsh Lock bridge on the Thames Path, erosion due to extreme weather, flooding, and damage from recreational vehicles.
• Bureaucratic Hurdles: Delays in getting permits from government agencies like the Environment Agency can leave only a very short window for essential repair and maintenance work to be done each year.

Definitions & Concepts

• National Trails: These are 16 major long-distance routes across the UK, providing well-signposted access to nature for walking, running, cycling, and horse riding. They are often more accessible to urban populations and people with disabilities than other countryside rights of way.
• Statutory Purpose: This is an official legal status given to landscapes like National Parks, which ensures they are protected and referenced in key legislation. National trails currently do not have this, putting public access at risk.

Source: National Trails
Volume 772: debated on Tuesday 9 September 2025

Transcript

Amy: 0:00

Thank you. Hello and welcome again to The Bench Report, where we discuss recent debates and briefings from the benches of the UK Parliament. A new topic every episode. You're listening to Amy and Ivan. Today, we are looking into a debate that caught our eye concerning the condition, the funding, and perhaps crucially, the legal standing of the UK's 16 national trails.

Ivan: 0:25

That's right. And you might initially think walking trails, maybe not the biggest political issue, but the scale and the stakes are actually quite high

Amy: 0:33

here. They really

Ivan: 0:34

are. The government's own figures show these routes contribute, well, an estimated $1.8 billion to the economy each year, plus about $300 million in annual savings for the NHS through health benefits.

Amy: 0:45

Huge numbers.

Ivan: 0:46

Absolutely huge. So it seems quite baffling, really, that they've apparently been seen as an easy target for cuts.

Amy: 0:51

And that really gets to the heart of the problem highlighted in the debate material, doesn't it? The funding issue. It's been flat since 2013.

Ivan: 0:57

Flat cash, yes. Which, when you factor in inflation over a decade...

Amy: 1:01

It's a massive real-terms cut. About 30%, according to the briefing. All while these trails are seeing, what, over 309 million visits every single year?

Ivan: 1:11

You just can't maintain that kind of infrastructure, that level of use, with a budget effectively shrinking year on year. It doesn't stack up.

Amy: 1:19

And the results are, well, visible on the ground. There were some specific examples.

Ivan: 1:23

There were. The Thames Path, for

Amy: 1:24

instance. Ah, yes. The Marshlock Horse Bridge. Between Henley and Ship Lake. It's been closed for over three years now.

Ivan: 1:31

That's right. Three years. And Think about the consequence for people walking the path.

Amy: 1:36

They're forced onto road diversions, dangerous ones apparently, crossing the A4 at 155 twice.

Ivan: 1:42

Exactly. Not ideal. And the estimated cost just to fix that one bridge, 2.5 million pounds.

Amy: 1:48

Plus for one bridge.

Ivan: 1:49

Then there's the Ridgeway, you know, Britain's oldest road, used for over 5,000 years.

Amy: 1:54

An incredible heritage asset, but it's facing damage from vehicles.

Ivan: 1:58

Yes, recreational motorized vehicles. Yeah. Because parts of it are legally classified as byways open to all traffic. I saw

Amy: 2:05

a mention of a disabled rambler's report from 2023. It found something like 80% of the miles they surveyed didn't meet basic standards.

Ivan: 2:13

That's the one. Nearly 80% of 50 surveyed miles, largely due to that vehicle damage, making it inaccessible for many.

Amy: 2:22

So this brings us to the legal status issue beyond just the funding.

Ivan: 2:25

Precisely. The debate pointed out a key difference. National trails don't have a statutory purpose defined in law, unlike, say, national parks.

Amy: 2:34

And their legal protection is often literally just the width of the path itself.

Ivan: 2:38

Often, yes. Very narrow, which has knock-on effects. What kind of effects? Environmental. That's it. Damage to adjacent nature reserves was highlighted. Hartslock Reserve, for example. It's one of only two UK sites left for the monkey orchid. The monkey orchid. Wow. Extremely rare. And path diversions, or people simply straying from the path edges because they're not clearly protected, can cause real harm there.

Amy: 2:59

And all this decay and legal ambiguity is happening just as the network is set to get much bigger.

Ivan: 3:04

That's the other pressure point. The King Charles III England coast path is nearing completion, set for 2025. It'll nearly double the network size.

Amy: 3:13

But how can that be sustained if, as the debate mentioned, a road like the Ridgeway gets just one pound per mile in funding?

Ivan: 3:20

It's a huge question. And then you add climate change into the mix, more extreme weather.

Amy: 3:25

Like the 300 percent above average rainfall mentioned, causing erosion, flooding.

Ivan: 3:30

All adding costs. And then bureaucracy slow A four-month delay just getting permits from the Environment Agency for flood repair work.

Amy: 3:38

Right. So you have underfunding, legal weaknesses, climate pressures, bureaucracy. What was the government's response in the debate?

Ivan: 3:45

Well, the minister stressed a commitment to public access. They highlighted the incoming King Charles III England Coast Path, 4,750 miles, called it an incredible infrastructure achievement.

Amy: 3:55

And mentioned job creation.

Ivan: 3:57

Yes, supporting almost 6,000 jobs. And they committed to delivering nine new national river walks as well. So focusing on expansion and access.

Amy: 4:05

But what about that core request, the statutory purpose to help protect places like Hart's Lock?

Ivan: 4:10

That was denied. The argument was it could create additional burdens. And that existing planning rules under other landscape designations, like areas of outstanding natural beauty or sites of special scientific interest, already provide protection.

Amy: 4:26

So the expansion continues, but that fundamental legal status issue for the trails themselves remains unchanged.

Ivan: 4:32

It seems so. Which leaves us with a final thought, perhaps. When you consider the sheer history wrapped up in routes like the Ridgeway or the Heritage of Access, like the Kinder Scout story.

Amy: 4:42

A pivotal moment in access rights.

Ivan: 4:44

It really makes you question whether our current setup, the funding models, the legal frameworks are truly robust enough to safeguard these, well, these national cultural assets for future generations. Something to ponder.

Amy: 4:56

As always, find us on social media at BenchReportUK. Get in touch with any topic important to you.

Ivan: 5:01

Remember, politics is everyone's business. Take

Amy: 5:03

care.