Public access to Dartmoor Commons clarified

On 21 May 2025, the Supreme Court announced its landmark judgment in the case of Darwall and another v Dartmoor National Park Authority, significantly impacting the legal landscape surrounding outdoor recreational activities in Dartmoor Commons. The case revolved around public access rights as specified in section 10(1) of the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 (the “1985 Act”), particularly questioning the legality of camping on the Commons.

Background details reveal that the appellants, Mr and Mrs Darwall, are landowners on Dartmoor who raised concerns about potential damage from wild camping near their property. They sought a ruling indicating that the public does not possess the right to camp on the Commons. The Dartmoor National Park Authority (DNPA) opposed this claim, asserting that the 1985 Act explicitly provides such rights, promoting public enjoyment and recreation in these areas.

In an initial ruling, the Court of Appeal sided with the DNPA, affirming that the relevant section of the 1985 Act grants public rights, which encompass the act of camping. However, Mr and Mrs Darwall were dissatisfied and appealed the decision, prompting a Supreme Court hearing on 8 October 2024. The ruling was keenly anticipated, as it highlighted the delicate balance between public access rights and private landownership.

Within their judgment, the Supreme Court stressed the need to interpret section 10(1) in light of its legislative history and intent. The judges stated that section 10(1) allows public access “on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation.” The primary issue at hand was whether camping is included as a form of recreation within this framework.

The ruling affirmed that camping is indeed recognised as a legitimate form of outdoor activity. The Lords concluded that this right includes camping, consistent with the statutory language and the law's original intent. They argued that while the phrase “on foot and on horseback” outlines how the public can access the Commons, it does not restrict the available forms of recreation. Essentially, camping is viewed as an activity that enhances the public's connection to the natural environment, similar to picnicking or birdwatching. Thus, it falls comfortably within the recreational activities permitted on the Commons.

Furthermore, the Court acknowledged landowners' concerns regarding potential damage and management of the Commons. The Supreme Court confirmed that the DNPA retains the authority to implement byelaws designed to mitigate disturbances resulting from such access and recreational pursuits. This decision reflects a thoughtful balancing act between the rights of the public and the interests of private landowners, advocating for the responsible enjoyment of natural resources.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled against the appellants, affirming the public's right to camp on Dartmoor Commons as long as it adheres to the established regulations and provisions. They clarified that unless new statutory limitations are introduced, the existing legal framework safeguards public access while promoting the sustainable use of these cherished natural environments.

This significant ruling not only clarifies public access rights concerning Dartmoor Commons but also sets an important precedent for interpreting similar rights across the UK, ensuring that the essence of outdoor recreation is protected in discussions of private ownership and land use concerns.