Home www.byways.org.uk
21 September 2003
Bob Cartwright (Director of Operations)
Paul Tiplady (National Parks Officer)
David Robinson (Trails Advisor)
The Lake District National Park Authority
Murley Moss
Oxenholme Road
Kendal
Cumbria
LA9 7RL
Dear
USE OF BYWAYS BY MOTOR VEHICLES
There is much discussion about the LDNPA’s stated objection to motor vehicles travelling on unmetalled roads and byways in the Lake District National Park. There is even a suggestion that the Authority is considering applying to Government for a blanket ban; although, I am unsure of the legal capacity available to the Authority for this. I am a keen outdoor artist with a physical disability such that I use a 4x4 vehicle in the National Park in order to reach appropriate sketching venues. My perception when in ‘the field’ is that at any one time there are very few 4x4 vehicles travelling the lanes compared to the thousands of walkers abroad on the paths and fells.
It is a fact, that there are only a few tens of miles of driveable byway, whereas there are, literally, several thousand miles of footpaths and bridleways. The greatest intrusion in the wilderness and disturbance of the tranquillity is from the hordes of walkers. The worst offenders are the rambling clubs, often in groups of 50 or more. The greatest cause of route erosion is from booted feet, and this in turn creates the worst scarring of the landscape. The National Park spends huge sums of money repairing footpaths. The use of helicopters to transport materials to repair paths is the worst possible form of mechanical intrusion in the Park, and the use of public money on this task is almost indefensible.
When I am sitting quietly painting on location in the Lake District, it is always walkers that have a greater presence than off-road vehicles. I put it to you that the visual, physical and financial impact of 4x4 vehicles on the very few lanes that that are legally driveable, is negligible when compared to the totality of the human traffic on all the paths. Yet, for wholly emotional reasons, the Park’s officers see fit to pursue a policy of disproportionate discrimination against the 4x4 driver.
I understand the Authority is concerned to protect the tranquillity of the Park, but tranquillity is an intrinsic quality where disturbance is created by the existence of any observer and therefore tranquillity can only be preserved without a human presence. Please would you care to justify the Park’s position in this matter, and perhaps you would be kind enough to explain why the LDNPA does not devote a comparable effort to restricting the routes available to walkers and hence take a more vigorous stand against pedestrian damage and human disturbance of the Park’s tranquillity.
Yours sincerely
Nigel Bennett QC
====================================================================================
7 October 2003
Mr M Eccles
Access and Recreation
Manager
The Lake District National Park Authority
Murley Moss
Oxenholme Road
Kendal
Cumbria
LA9 7RL
Dear Mr Eccles
USE OF BYWAYS BY MOTOR VEHICLES
Thank you for your reply dated 30 September to my letter of 21 September. I notice that you made no reference to my comments about controlling the masses of intrusive and trail damaging walkers. Instead, you explain, in sympathetic tones, how the authority is very happy to keep on repairing footpaths no matter what the damage and cost, but clearly the maintenance of green roads is seen in a rather different light. I have read the attached LDNPA Management Plan Part One, Section 5.2 and the Report of the Hierarchy of Trail Routes Experiment (Report) with great interest.
The documents make it very clear that the Authority is opposed to recreational vehicles using green roads of all kinds, stating intrusion and risk of damage as the reasons, and the statement is made [as if it were a fact rather than opinion] that the activity is inappropriate in the National Park. This is hardly an argument. By definition, intrusion is an entirely subjective concept; what is intrusive for one is enjoyment for another. And the Authority is demonstrating double standards by viewing the possible risk of damage to green roads as sufficient justification for its position, whereas it suggests that the actual and extensive damage to paths and bridleways is somehow acceptable because it is caused by a “harmonious” activity. How footpath damage can be harmonious with the National Park’s purposes quite escapes me.
I do not have the time to respond with a critical analysis of the whole of the material, so I will confine myself to the challenge I made in my first letter: that the officers of the Authority are taking a wholly emotional, and hence irrational, stance on the issue.
The LDNPA is not a private company, free to determine who it does business with and who it does not. You are public servants with a legal requirement to work with and for all sections of the indigenous and visiting communities. You have neither the remit nor the authority to decide arbitrarily that one category of visitor should be restricted in favour of another.
The Executive Summary of your Report includes the most imperious and outrageous statement imaginable - “Continued tolerance of recreational green road driving as of right undermines the potential of the National Park to present itself as a special area where such activity will not be encountered.”
Upon what basis does the LDNPA believe it has the right to decide that the Park should present itself as free from recreational vehicles? There is nothing in the legislation pertaining to National Parks that provides for this position to be adopted. Who, precisely, is not expecting to encounter vehicles on a road? If walkers and cyclists do not wish to encounter vehicles, they can use the “extensive” network of paths and bridleways. Why are recreational vehicles singled out? Why do you not include agricultural and commercial vehicles, where the physical and environmental impact is worse? If your argument is sustainable, should the Authority not address the potential for the Park to present itself as free of all traffic, particularly the motor coaches and buses so unsuited to almost every road in the area?
The LDNPA is there to administer the total legal entity of the Park with all its facets and encumbrances; it cannot be selective, and there should be no place in the Authority’s use of language for referring to the legal use of a road by vehicles, as “tolerating” that use. You are clearly expressing your personal preferences and thereby prejudicing your professional capacity as executive officers appointed to administer a public duty.
The Report is so full of subjective statements and false hypotheses, that one hardly knows where to start. The subjectivity is employed to bolster the argument in the absence of real facts and evidence, thereby proving beyond all doubt that the issue is not a problem at all. The emotive, rather than factual, language begins as early as the second paragraph in Section 1.1, when the Report talks about the “perceived growth of recreational driving……..as a result of increased sales of 4WD vehicles…” and “…it appears to be a burgeoning activity.”
So basically, the LDNPA does not have a clue about the real dynamics of the issue. And on the point of claiming car sales as supporting the Authority’s stance, the motor manufacturers acknowledge that over 98% of all 4WD vehicles are never taken off road, hence sales growth is a totally spurious measure when dealing with this particular issue.
The Report grudgingly admits that 4WD vehicles accounted for only 0.9% of all usage of the lanes monitored, and even then, there was no data on whether they were recreational or agricultural vehicles. To return to my earlier theme, the walkers, however, were “the dominant user on most of the surveyed routes” accounting for nearly 80% of the users, but there is no acknowledgement that this heavy usage by walkers could have contributed to some of the damage. Even more grudgingly, the Report states that “The majority of this [vehicle] use generated no complaints from other users.” So, where were all those people who are upset at not expecting to encounter vehicles on the green roads of the Lake District?
“Of the 109 routes only 20-25” are acknowledged to be used regularly and the few complaints made (75 in 3 years, ie 6% of the total) were about numbers of vehicles travelling in convoy not complaints about noise, etc. The detailed accounts of the user activity on the Priority and Benchmark routes state clearly that most of the damage is caused by natural drainage and agricultural vehicles. Also, there was no way of knowing whether drivers of agricultural vehicles had been culprits in ignoring TROs.
The simple and inescapable conclusions [from your own data] are that:
The data in the Report show that the total route length available to 4WD vehicles in the HoTR is just 165km. Given that the average width of a road is around 3 metres, then the area of the Park under discussion is just about a half of one square kilometre. Compared to the remaining 2,291.5 sq km that the LDNPA administers, this hardly justifies the effort and cost by an Authority, which is supposed to address issues on a basis of priority and prudent financial management. I am reminded of the expression: ‘pole vaulting over sleeping ants’.
To extend this comparison further in a rather whimsical manner, if the Authority was to spend a similar amount, to the cost incurred on this experiment (£68,445), on the remaining area of the Park, it would need an ad hoc annual budget of £156 million for the pursuit of ideology.
If the Authority wishes to pursue a policy of closing down activities considered incompatible with the special qualities of the National Park, it could perhaps direct its energies to those in the agricultural community who pursue inappropriate farming methods; pollute the water courses with agrichemicals; create eyesores with plastic covered haylage bales; ruin the green roads with heavy vehicles; and generally disturb the tranquillity for all those walkers and cyclists seeking peace and quiet. My enjoyment is greatly diminished when I come across fields and farm yards strewn with fertilizer sacks and gates tied up with coloured baler twine.
You may feel that the above paragraph is close to ridiculous. I agree; thereby proving that parochial agendas have no place in the administration of Britain’s primary National Park. What about a show of realism and commonsense? The LDNPA could earn considerable respect by demonstrating some tolerant leadership here.
Yours sincerely
Nigel Bennett QC
Copies to Mr R Cartwright
Mr D Robinson
Mr P Tiplady
Home www.byways.org.uk