Home www.byways.org.uk

Legal User benefits the Community, Individuals, and the Environment.

• Many people access the countryside by different methods. This is freedom of choice that should not be removed without good cause.
• No case has been made that there is any serious problem caused by ordinary legal users
• Illegal users cannot be expected to comply with complex regulations, they do not now.
• More responsible users will be driven away from clubs that encourage lawful sustainable use.
• With the loss of a large proportion of the byway network, the pressure on that remaining will be so great that those remaining will be over used, and subject to TRO, or will be surfaced as ordinary roads.
• Leisure users do NOT seek mud, those in the user groups are responsible caring users. Many are professional mature individuals. CLBA seek to portray a mischievous picture of hooligans on the evidence of some undisputed illegal use. Use legitimate user’s groups have repeated asked to be curtailed and prosecuted whenever possible.
• Agricultural use of Off-Road vehicles is about 3,000 times the use of recreational vehicles on byways.[1]
• Lane users offer County Emergency Planning Officers back-up in flooding and severe weather.
• Research into Butterflies and Bumblebees has shown that the insides of Green Lanes are of greater benefit than the outside or hedgerows or grass banks.
• That periodic cutting back of dense vegetation is beneficial.
• That greater threats exist from Farm Vehicles use, Neglect, Excessive Hardcore Tarmac than recreational vehicles, and that management may be required. However the make-up of that user type has not been evaluated.
• It is unjust to allow only 1 year to claim rights for historic use; this is bound to place impossible impositions on volunteer workers.
• Some Records Offices close for decorating etc, some documents are unavailable for months for restoration work.
• Some research workers have been working systematically on all status of RoW in the public interest, it is most unjust to conspire to deny DLW involvement (after previous expectations) and bring forward the cut-off date dramatically.
• There is no ‘owner’ for most RBs. There is therefore no owner that has dedicated the road for horse and cart or any other use. They were usually highways before the adjacent land was enclosed. They were disowned when Tithes were payable, or when Incremental taxation was payable.
• RBs are of the same origin as BOATs and other minor highways until they were coated with tarmac.
• Government set up a research project to decide whether recreational vehicles played a significant role in  damage to unsealed roads. It has not waited for results before introducing draconian changes, hundreds of times more disruptive to legal users than all changes under CROW 2000 so far. This is not ‘evidence based legislation’
• The changes proposed are contrary to the Government’s past statements that there is no evidence of widespread damage. No evidence has been produced of any significant damage.
• Making the Best of Byways supports the work undertaken by user groups and highlights that agricultural and other users cause damage.
• Damage is caused by:
• Wide, heavy farm vehicles using at all times of the year
• Foresting works, timber extraction, grubbing out sunken lanes when replanting.
• Shooting parties frequently 30 or more vehicles
• Hunting
• Water erosion
• Farm stock movements.
• Utilities laying services below the road
• Access to remote power and gas lines by utilities
• Neglect of the surface, for decades, then:
• Excessive hardcore, rather than ‘stitch in time’ maintenance.
• Military exercises
• Sports events, hill climbs, rallies etc. run at speed.
• Trees allowed to grow from the bed of the road
• Build up of silt or spoil on the metalled surface of old roads
• Neglect of the falling away of banks
• Flooding through blocked drainage ditches.
• Lack of cutting back of overgrowth to aid the drying action of Sun and Wind.
• Occasional, light vehicles do not cause damage, predominantly summer time use, at low speed.
• Damage is proportional to the square (or cube) of the weight on an axle. A 20 tonne trailer on a 12 tonne tractor is a hundred times more damaging than a 2 tonne leisure vehicle.
• Many footpaths are ploughed or muddy, others overgrown. Most byways are in better condition; one official comprehensive report[2] showed that BOATs were twice as easy as footpaths to use! How does this square up to claims that vehicles damage most? It is simply untrue.
•  

Illegal use

• Illegal use is bound to increase substantially.[3]
• Clubs reduce illegal use by peer pressure, education, and expulsion of offenders.
• If the stated target of exclusion of GLEAM is achieved there will be no user clubs, to distribute Code of Conducts, or work to control misuse.
• Potential members would not be informed of good practice, but join the Rebel Riders instead.
• Anti Vehicle signs will be expensive, intrusive, and subject to vandalism, making enforcement difficult. Many RUPPS currently look identical to, and indeed are ordinary roads.
• Anti vehicle gates, or other devices such as the Kent Carriage Gap are expensive, and inhibit authorised users.
• LARA members have found apathy when reporting illegal use.
• Some Highway Authorities are very good with working with vehicles users, some are very bad.
• The minister has not taken our view into account at all, but has been influenced by the CLA lobbying and a single user group
• Much use of RBs will be unlawful, unintentionally, unless compliant signs or locked gates prevent such inadvertent use.

The Consultation is confused, based on inadequate data, and will have many unintended adverse affects

• The consultation on legislative changes to RUPPs had not been completed before these proposals were made.
• A prime concern is fly-tipping and dumping prompting these proposals. There will be nothing in these proposals to combat the illegal dumping; it will happen equally on Restricted Byways, bridleways, private tracks or field gates. It may be exacerbated by lack of use. A used track is less often dumped on than an unused track.
• Legal users work in co-operation with HAs to remove torched cars to accessible locations for recovery.
• Some MPVs were, by a loophole in the law not classed as ‘motor vehicles'. Clubs have campaigned they should be. The consultation is confused –  MPVs and MVs are not differentiated. (Some MPVs are illegal on any public road![4])
• Confused - lack of factual data on scope and nature of the problems.
• DEFRA Admit Authorities do not presently understand the current measures open to them to deal with illegal use.[5]
• Users have called for a dedicated Police Officer in each Police Force to deal with RoW enforcement, and liase with legal responsible user organisations for mutual benefit.
• The public costs will be appreciable in determining whether BOAT status could have been successful, judging by the delay in HAs determining BOAT applications and reclassifications.
• Enforcement of use of MPVs on RBs serving more than one property would be difficult, as any user might be legitimate to another property.

The proposal will seriously affect Householders.

• Householders and other property owners, some being large estates, or say pension funds, with tenants and no local owner, will have to establish whether the access road is classified as a RUPP before the proposed legislation. This may be shown as a conventional ‘yellow’ road on an OS Landranger map, and be tarmac.
• They will then have to establish whether they have an easement conferring Private Vehicle access. This will mean accessing deeds held remotely, and usually obtaining legal advice, by a vast number of people whether affected or not.
• DEFRA admit they have no idea how many will be affected[6]
• Numerous cases where no vehicular access exists may be exposed[7]
• Some of these will be to public buildings.[8]
• The outcome of BOAT DMMOs has been regarded as a lottery and unpredictable in the past, especially when adjacent landowners are represented by barristers. Unless every owner affected can show that a RoW would have been recorded as BOAT before the legislation they will not be granted an easement under Proposal 6 [9].  Any such property affected will often be virtually unsaleable[10], or an easement will have to be negotiated at great expense by way of a ‘ransom’ as well as legal fees. It is not clear whether such an easement can be granted over an RB. (In some cases the land owner can not be identified, or it will be the Surveyor of Highways, now the HA) Assuming an easement can be granted, all frontagers would need to grant permission, this might be impossible from some antagonistic neighbours. Alternative access will be physically impossible in some locations, expensive in others.
• A number of walkers, for example, resisting all vehicle use, may object[11] to easements by arguing that a BOAT could not have been recorded before the legislation.
• This will be seen as a Stealth Tax by householders having to pay for road maintenance henceforth, that had previously been publicly maintained, particularly where the RUPP was dual status with Unclassified Road listing[12].
• Whilst existing property owners may apply for an easement, development along RBs may be inhibited due to no easement in existence, and even if no cut-off date is envisaged for easements, these will have to be obtained, at additional expense before applying for planning permission.

The proposal will adversely affect many small businesses.

• A farm shop situate along an RB will lose business. So will B&Bs lose passing trade, and further, any signs warning that driving on the RB is a criminal offence may deter customers.
• Other owners along the RB resenting passing traffic may challenge permitted users, or doubtful callers.

The proposal will affect unsuspecting users following ‘other activities’.

• It is illogical inconsistent and unjust to remove the rights of responsible users of diverse activities yet allow far more intensive and often damaging access by private MPVs [13].
• It must be appreciated that the majority of RUPPs are conventional roads, that may (or may not) have escaped the tar sprayer, and often look like any other rural roads do.
• The activities that are affected by RBs are
• Householders requiring vehicular access[14]
• Anglers
• Canoeists, kayakers
• Balloonist’s recovery vehicles[15]
• Amateur Radio operators
• Hang gliders
• Equestrian even organisers
• Sporting event organisers
• Marshals on events.
• Hunt and game sports persons requiring access over a third parties land.
• Motoring clubs organising treasure hunts, club or National rallies.
• Disabled drivers in conventional vehicles, or in class 4 vehicles requiring easy unobstructed access, afforded by byways.
• Families with young or elderly members unable to walk reasonable distances.
• Utilities requiring access without enquiring of ownership to gain keys to barriers and gates.
• Mountaineers.
• Cavers.
• School parties on field visits.
• Golf clubs,
• Model aircraft enthusiasts and kite flying from high remote locations.
• Sporting events of all descriptions, and hobbyists (as above) accessing permissive land for activities, only accessed by RBs. [16]
• Anyone organising a village fete or Gymkhana will need to get permission from every owner that the RB crosses.[17]
• Ponies in fields, feeding.