I honestly don't think that there is any implication - other than a fear of litigation.
Most councils are ultra-cautious in almost everything they do due to these silly health and safety laws - which themselves arise because people will sue if they can.
Some examples I've seen in my own community are a) a Carnival banner which used to stretch across the road from one lamp post to another was deemed dangerous in case it fell on a car. It never had in all the years the Carnival took place but the potential was there. b) the local council bought a strip of magnificent, natural land to prevent it being used for home building. They were obliged to 'mow' as much of it as they could and to carry out regular safety checks for fallen tree limbs, holes and so on - because people walked their dogs on the land and might fall over a log or get a foot down a hole. c) kids approached the council for funds to pop a small, five-a-side net on a grass verge in an extremely quiet road. The council didn't dare give them the money because if an accident had occurred, the council would be deemed responsible for funding the net. Parents allowing their children to use it didn't come into the equation.
I could go on (and on
) but in respect of the article in the Daily Mail, it appears necessary to buy a licence in order to forage. As a financial transaction/licence has taken place, whoever owns this land would have responsibility towards the user. If such a user was to have an accident - even a small one - and decided to sue the cost to the land owner could be high. To maintain the land in order to comply with the health and safety laws would also be costly.
There's nothing sinister here - just our society's inclination to sue the A**e off anyone for anything.