LAST week as part of Access Month, countryside lovers got together to argue their different interests. Lancashire Evening Telegraph naturalist Ron Freethy takes a personal look at what happened.

NOT so long ago, my nightmare would have been to sit in the midst of a country landowner, a horserider, a rambler and a mountain biker.

The Groundwork Trust grasped the nettle and invited representatives of these contrasting bodies to meet around a table and engage in lively debate with members of the public.

What they needed was a neutral chairman. Did they need a member of the SAS, an armoured knight from a bygone age, or would Peter Butterfield, editor of the Lancashire Evening Telegraph, do?

In the end, Peter was chosen and I was invited to be the "inter-round summariser" to quote a boxing term. Much to my surprise, there was an amount of agreement and a willingness to compromise.

The panel included Paul Heyes, representing the mountain bikers; David Beskine, the assistant director of Access of the Ramblers Association; Jolyon Dodgson of the Country Landowners Association, and Lady Mary Towneley of the Bridleways Association. Peter began by plunging in at the deep end and pointing out: "There are those who say that we should all have the right to go anywhere we want. The land is their heritage. We should all be able to wander freely over the open countryside, whatever our status... but is it as simple as that?

"Of course it is not. The countryside is like a green workshop - vital processes are going on all the time and the farmers would tell us that unlimited access would damage their business."

Although naturally on the defensive, all four of the panel members argued their case and what emerged was a fair measure of compromise. Neither did there seem to be any argument about the role of wildlife.

Room had to be made for the fauna and flora, particularly rare species or delicately balanced habitats which need to be left alone.

As is always the case in these matters, there will be differences, but these appeared to be at a national level rather than at the local grass roots. We do not need an inflexible national access law but one which allows local agreements, first to be agreed and then acted upon by local bylaws. Landowners need to grant rights of access and local authorities must be responsible for careful and accurate way marking.

On the other hand, farmers and landowners must have a right to privacy and there must also be room for access to be denied at certain "sensitive" times of the year.

At the start of the meeting, I expected to witness a nightmare, but at the end of what turned out to be an enjoyable night, I think I saw just the chance of a very pleasant dream of a contented countryside.

Perhaps Paradise Lost should be replaced at last by Paradise Regained.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.