PSPOs

Peak District ban on stoves threatens youth outdoor activities

Two Peak District councils have introduced a blanket ban on the use of any ‘naked flame’. We received an email from a local walker, who is concerned that these orders will affect youth outdoor activities such as Duke of Edinburgh (who tend to carry small gas stoves), as well as warm-up stops for youth groups and conservation volunteers, and outdoor training in fire and stove use for children and adults.

This is a matter of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is perfectly possible to use camping stoves safely, and this PSPO could have some very perverse unintended consequences. It is basic hill safety to carry the means to make a hot drink, especially in inclement weather. It is also hard to see how prohibiting outdoor training in the safe use of stoves will help prevent wildfires. We urge these councils to reconsider and to introduce more targeted orders.

The email from the Peak District walker is reproduced below:

“I’m writing to share some serious concerns about two Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) recently introduced by High Peak Borough Council and Staffordshire Moorlands District Council.

The two PSPOs in question – aimed at reducing wildfire risk in moorland areas of the Peak District National Park – appear to raise a number of serious issues in terms of vague drafting, disproportionate prohibitions, inadequate consultation, and potential overreach. In their current form, they could have far-reaching consequences for countryside access, rural life, and civil liberties more broadly.

The Peak District National Park as a whole attracts a reported 13 million visitors a year. While these PSPOs do not cover the whole of that area, the number of potentially affected visitors to the area covered by the orders is likely to be substantial.

Both orders prohibit:

  • “Placing, throwing or dropping anything likely to cause a fire”
  • “Lighting fires, barbecues (including disposable ones), fireworks or Chinese lanterns”
  • “Using any item that either (i) causes a naked flame or (ii) poses a risk of fire”

The phrase ‘poses a risk of fire’ is notably undefined and could be interpreted to include a broad spectrum of everyday countryside activities.

The High Peak Borough Council PSPO is an extension of a 2021 order, but it is considerably broader: it removes the ability for groups to ask for permission to use stoves, and also includes the additional restriction on use of items that pose a risk of fire. The Staffordshire Moorlands Council PSPO is an entirely new order.

Many lawful, benign, and longstanding rural activities could be inadvertently caught by the prohibitions, including:

  • Smoking, matches, lighters
  • Portable stoves, candles, or trangias
  • Tools with hot exhausts used by contractors or farmers
  • Picnics involving gas burners
  • Memorial candles
  • Conservation work involving vegetation clearance
  • Youth group outdoor education (e.g. Duke of Edinburgh)
  • Ceremonial or community events involving small flames

Even glass bottles or binoculars left in sunlight could arguably fall within the ‘fire risk’ wording. While Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service reported that a glass bottle was the likely cause of a recent fire on Froggatt Edge in the Peak District National Park, banning glass bottles from the area appears to be unreasonably draconian.

The result is likely to be confusion, disproportionate enforcement, and reduced public confidence in access rights.

These orders have an excessive and unclear geographical scope. Both orders apply to:

  • Land owned by the council and open to the air
  • Access land under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
  • Land within the Peak District National Park

This includes footpaths, informal laybys, picnic areas, moorland edges, and areas with no obvious signage or indication that a PSPO is in force. The result is legal uncertainty for visitors and residents.

In my view, these councils have also failed to meet the requirements under the relevant Act before passing these orders. Although both PSPOs include brief statements asserting that the necessary conditions have been met, neither order provides any substantive evidence to support this claim.

Specifically, the orders do not demonstrate:

  • That the activities prohibited are persistent, unreasonable, and have a detrimental effect on the quality of life in the locality;
  • That alternative enforcement mechanisms have been considered and found insufficient;
  • Any assessment of the proportionality of the restrictions;
  • A summary of consultation feedback, equality impacts, or rural consequences.

This absence of evidence weakens the legitimacy of the orders.

Both councils had unusually short consultation periods and inadequate scrutiny. A draft PSPO was considered by High Peak Borough Council on 9 May 2025 and by Staffordshire Moorlands District Council on 15 May 2025. The councils suggested that short consultation periods could be justified because the orders required urgent introduction. However, council records show that they were in planning and listed for decision weeks earlier, on 13 February in the case of High Peak, and on 11 February in the case of Staffordshire Moorlands.

In both cases, there is no publicly available consultation summary, equality or rural impact assessment, or evidence that the orders were scrutinised by full council or a relevant committee.

The orders mistakenly refer to a Level 2 fine, rather than the correct Level 3 penalty (up to £1,000). While this may seem minor, it reflects poorly on the standard of legal drafting and scrutiny and raises wider concerns about the care taken in producing these orders.

The orders contain certain exemptions for countryside activities but they are far too limited. Both orders include exemptions for:

  • Emergency services and National Park Authority staff acting under statutory duties;
  • Landowners or their agents conducting legitimate land management activities;
  • Proper use of fixed cooking or BBQ structures installed by landowners (where not otherwise prohibited).

These appear to be necessary and broadly reasonable safeguards. However, they are also narrow and leave important gaps, including:

  • No exemption for educational or supervised group use, such as forest schools, scout groups, or Duke of Edinburgh participants using trangias or fire bowls;
  • No permit or discretionary system to allow responsible event or volunteer fire use;
  • Ambiguities in the wording of ‘legitimate’ and ‘proper use’ that could lead to interpretation disputes.

The result is a framework that protects landowners and agencies but risks criminalising conservation volunteers, educators, and responsible community use of the countryside. This will potentially affect: warmup breaks for youth and school groups or conservation volunteers; fire lighting demos and training for schools and adults; and mountain rescue activities and training. In this sense, the exemptions, while welcome, are not sufficient to address the broader concerns raised by the PSPO’s scope and drafting.

In their broader implications, these orders risk:

  • Criminalising legitimate rural activity;
  • Chilling responsible access and outdoor learning;
  • Undermining public confidence in countryside freedoms;
  • Setting a precedent for template-driven enforcement powers without sufficient justification.

The broad wording of the PSPOs risks deterring schools and providers from bringing groups into these areas at all, which would be a real loss. The benefits of DofE are huge – it helps young people build confidence, teamwork, resilience and independence. Participants generally use portable stoves (usually trangias or gas canisters) to prepare hot food and drinks – essential not just for nourishment, but also for safety, especially in cold or wet conditions. These stoves are used responsibly, under supervision and with training. Penalising or deterring this kind of activity, even unintentionally, sends entirely the wrong message.

These PSPOs reflect a shift away from stewardship and collaboration, and towards restriction and penalisation – a direction that is not in keeping with the ethos of open countryside access.”

The author is a local walker with longstanding ties to the area, a former Scout and DofE participant, with a strong interest in countryside access and youth development.