Introduction
There is a Parliamentary crusade being raged on Rights of Way. How does it affect me? That is the question it is natural to ask.
Rights of Way (RoW) are highways; we all either need to use or just wish to use highways. They are just as vital as food or water! Without highways we cannot venture off our property, in short we would starve if not 100% self sufficient for the essentials of life; including a partner and even procreation! Or they may be for relaxation, leisure, exercise, hobbies etc. They are an ancient right of every citizen.
But all land is owned, to walk ride or drive over another’s property without authority is tort, or an offence if with a motor vehicle! So we have highways, either Footpath, Bridleway (for horses cycles and walking), and ‘Full Highways’ or Carriageways, often called ‘byways’, for all these purposes and motor vehicles. They do not have to be tarmac to be a public road. 50 years ago most roads in rural areas were not tarred. Some are stoned, or grass if little used!
This is a fact of modern life, they are unsuitable for normal transport needs, slower, dusty in summer, and they can be a little muddy on the surface in winter. But they are a unique, irreplaceable part of our heritage that get if not used will become overgrown, or obstructed. They are used by many different people for a vast array of different purposes; agriculture, sport, relaxation, hobbies etc.
The problem:
· Some people will always abuse any aspect of life. Illegal use, (under age, racing, dumping and torching cars, off-road uninsured untaxable vehicles, vehicles on footpaths or bridleways etc).
· There can be unsuitable use, driving up and down banks, driving far too fast for the safety of others, driving where the vehicle is certain to cause damage.
· Landowners perceive an increase in property values, privacy or security if RoW can be closed or reduced in status.
· Many roads, including some footpaths or bridleways are under recorded, and have vehicular rights. This leads to conflict.
· Through ambiguous past legislation the rights on RUPPS (Roads used mainly as Public Paths are used) are uncertain.
· The CLBA and RA have run an extensive campaign to get all public vehicles out of the Countryside, rather than work with others.
Who DOES use these byways?
· Predominantly agriculture. Commercial interests,
· Illegal use referred to above.
What has happened that is now such a problem?
Through extensive lobbying from financially motivated interests, including a campaign to get members (CLBA & RA) writing to MPs, Alun Michael feels the easiest way is to stop ALL non-commercial vehicles of any non-tarmac road! This is a draconian change in a thousand years of ‘Once a Highway always a Highway’, and the effects will be far-reaching on many unsuspecting un-coordinated users of the countryside. See Users
An excellent overview of what the legislation means is given below.
Defra Consultation Document
An analysis
by Chris Gardiner
The Government introduced the Countryside & Right of Way act 2000 (CROW act) primarily to allow people access to the countryside, commons, open spaces etc. This act is probably best known for its "right to roam" policies. Also with this act the Government has made legislation to tie up all the "loose ends" regarding rights of way regarding footpaths, bridleways, RuPP's and BOAT's. It still allows applications for Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMO's) but has set a cut-off date for the year 2026. After this time the Definitive map will become truly definitive, i.e, no changes can be made to any right of way in the form of upgrade or down grade. The "Definitive Map" is the map held by the local Rights of Way Office showing all the footpaths bridleways RuPP's and BOAT's etc and is available for public inspection. Until 2026 an application can still be made to the local Rights of Way office for a DMMO to, for example, up-grade a footpath to a bridleway, a bridleway to a BOAT, bridleway to RuPP, or RuPP to a BOAT etc, but after the cut-off date (2026) everything will stay as it is but with one important change. All RuPP's will automatically be DOWN GRADED to a new status called a Restricted Byway. (RB). A Restricted Byway has rights for walkers, cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles but NOT for motorised users. (This in itself will have consequences on trail riding but at least we would have until 2026 to apply for DMMO's to up-grade the RuPP's to BOAT's.) This is where the latest DEFRA consultation document comes in. The Minister is seeking to bring forward the implementation of the Restricted Byway to ONE YEAR from the commencement date of his proposed new Act, instead of the year 2026. The consultation document is aimed directly at RuPPs. At present motorised vehicles are using RuPP's because sufficient evidence can usually be found to show that these routes were once used by horse and carts. This gives them a higher status than a bridleway and so gives presumed rights to motorised vehicles. The Minister wants to take away the right to claim motor vehicular use of a RuPP on the evidence that they were once used by horse drawn vehicles and also do away with the RuPP altogether, making it a Restricted Byway and as mentioned earlier bring the cut-off date forward to one year.
The problem for the CLBA (who have made these proposals almost verbatim that DEFRA is now consulting on) is to determine who they want to regard as legitimate, and who is not! They want to stop the Oiks that come out to enjoy the countryside, (despite the £6,500M pa rural subsidies) but need to retain access for premises.
This is the nub of the problem. There are FOUR broad types of full highway.
1. BOATS – Byways Open to All Traffic
2. RUPPs - (Roads used mainly as Public Paths are used)
3. UCRs – UnClassified Roads maintained by the Council
4. Under Recorded Roads.
This fourth category includes ‘White roads’ known to car rally enthusiasts for seventy years or more, Non-maintained roads (See HA80 s1(2), s47, s57 etc), Under or non recorded ways. Only the first two are RoW. BOATs are ONLY 1.85% of all RoW, (see consultation for precise figures). RUPPs, like BOATs are sometimes tarred, partially tarred, stoned, partly stoned, or earth roads. There are almost TWICE as many RUPPs as BOATs. RUPPs are being reclassified as RBs – Restricted Byways. It is necessary to prove vehicular rights before using! (UCRs are sometimes claimed to be of ‘unproven status’ and under-recorded highway use can lead to prosecution and confiscation of the vehicle!)
Therefore RUPPs – nearly 2/3rds of the minor roads (mainly non-tarmac) that we have ALL been used to driving will suddenly become illegal to drive! What is worse is that the Minister also ‘minded’ to close BOATs as well! The misery is not yet complete; the legislation proposed, states any documentary evidence to establish the status will allow ONLY horse drawn vehicles to be used. Therefore, any adjacent landowner, or other person, may request UCRs to be reclassified and shown on the Definitive Map of RoW, yet that will ONLY be as a RB.
The strangulation of all motor vehicles from the countryside except tarmac roads in everyday use will be total. All users will suffer the effects of this; very few have any idea of the potential devastating effects on many activities. I can only list a few; others must think how it will affect them.
Householders living on an RB will need to get an easement, but they MUST show the way HAD public vehicular rights before the legislation. Very difficult, expensive, legally a lottery, devastating if one fails, and selling whilst the protracted procedure in under way, will be impossible at full value. What happens if you live on a very minor road, or in a Cul de Sac, perhaps one that continues as a footpath, that has been used for years, but no easement is shown in your deeds? Any application to record on the DM means ONLY Motor use pre 1930 is valid to establish motor vehicle rights, otherwise it will become a Restricted Byway, and an easement will have to be purchased at great cost. (See Proposal 6)
Hobbyists (amateurs, anglers, bird spotters, kite flyers, metal detectorists etc) will be barred from all non-tarmac (and some minor tarmac) roads. Often a conventional car would be usable, sometimes a Landrover or similar would be more suited.
Disabled access by off-road capable vehicles will end, or, due to overgrowth, obstructions or locked gates, access in battery-powered buggies will be inhibited.
Sporting or Event sites MAY be accessed directly from a main road. Very many are not. If it is on any private land accessed by a minor highway, (UCR, RUPP, BOAT etc.) a permit will be required from the landowner for vehicular access, at a cost, in addition to the permission to use the site.
Ironically the CLAIMED target of these measures, illegal users, will hardly be affected! These hooligans will not stay to highways, by definition they are Rebel Riders, they will be uncontrollable and ride anywhere, fast without insurance, in greater numbers, and a greater menace than ever, when all lawful public use ends.
It is not possible to overestimate the devastating effect this will have on access to the countryside. It is vital that everyone opposed to this overbearing regulation responds to the Consultation or writes to their MP.
BOAT claims are not a threat but an opportunity to provide high quality highways for ALL users, of good ecological value. It is not 'unfair' to Landowners where (as is usually the case), the land is not registered in their ownership, and was never taxed under the 1910 FA, nor were Tithes ever paid!
What CAN be done to prevent illegal or antisocial use?
Getting the problem into proportion is the first step. Illegal use is not a major problem in most counties, but there is a lack of information, which DEFRA admits it does not have, and is waiting from consultants Faber Maunsell. All Independent reports have said there IS no widespread serious problem. Measures have been taken to deal with these problems but DEFRA admit Authorities do not yet know about these. This is truly astounding.
1. Implement Proposal 1 (enforcement) urgently, this will reduce anti social use, and should have been done long ago. Then consider, in the light of the updated advice contained in MBoB II, and factual research what more, if anything, needs to be done.
2. Another option is to establish the rights on the RUPPs (where some rights are in doubt – about 1 in 5) using a very limited range of evidence to allow simple determination in place of the convoluted process currently used.
3. Authorisation to drive vehicles on any unsealed roads is an option with great potential. An explanation of rights, and responsibilities along with signing to a Code of Conduct, provides those rights that could be revoked if antisocial use occurred, or a prosecution without such authorisation. This should not be necessary, however it would create far fewer problems and injustices than what is proposed. Members of all recognised societies legitimately requiring access to rural highways could be authorised, the sanction to ensure sensible use is that the authorisation could be withdrawn (any future use could then be readily prosecuted).
4. A 5mph speed limit can be imposed on any unsealed unsurfaced road that is enclosed. Excessive speed could result in withdrawel of an Authorisation. This improves safety on an already astoundingly safe activity. Makes the way undesirable as a 'rat-run' as it would take longer. Use on unmetalled roads could be suspended Nov to Feb. Further restrictions can be imposed n consultation with Highway Authorities for motorised vehciles to stop for other users on specific lanes.