Home www.byways.org.uk
For a full pdf version, Herefordshire council has a copy of the GLASS scanned copy of MBoB here.
A selection of extracts from:
MAKING THE BEST OF BYWAYS
- Department of Transport Environment and the Regions. -
- A Practical Guide on Managing the Use of Vehicles on Rights of Way
1.2 The focus of this guide is on unsealed ways which carry vehicular rights. These include:
· RUPPs [only] (where rights do exist)
· Byways Open to ALL Traffic (BOATs)
· routes formerly defined as Unclassified County Roads (UCRs)
Byways and hedgerows are a significant contribution to the patchwork quilt character of the countryside. The function has changed, they are now valued as a recreational resource along with footpaths and bridleways. They are of particular value because:
· byways are available to all users including carriage drivers motorcyclists and drivers of other motor vehicles.
· byways can be easier to find and follow than footpaths and bridleways
· byways are generally free from gates, stiles, vegetation, thus more accessible to all.
· byways are not normally cultivated and more likely to have a firm all weather surface than footpaths or bridleways.
Byways can be as attractive as footpaths and bridleways, educational and cultural as a result of their historic and ecological interest.
Many provide agricultural access, and some to residential property. Byways are used for a variety of purposes; recreational use stands out.
Making the Best of Byway’s aim is to convey information to those authorities who have not used such measures. With Consultation, Flexibility, Enlightened approach by highway authorities, many of the concerns can be address for the benefit of all.
2 - THE PROBLEMS?
2.2 Status and Information:
Residents adjacent may fear a sudden invasion if a RUPP is reclassified to BOAT. Such concerns and misconceptions are often due to lack of, or mis-information.
2.3 User Conflicts:
Many users are members of clubs. This group of users is considerate and amenable to positive management measure aimed at safeguarding the byway resource.
Some use may be by mudpluggers, who revel in the muddiness of a byway, the research seems to suggest that this is not a widespread problem. It may be severe locally for example on the edge of urban areas may be a resource for illegal use by underage motorcyclists.
Byways are important to walkers horse riders carriage drivers and cyclist who wish to escape the hazards associated with trafficked roads and to experience what they consider the tranquillity of the countryside. This is subjective, e.g. farm vehicles, aircraft or nearby roads. The concerns may be made worse by others not anticipating meeting recreational motor traffic. Little evidence has been found to suggest that problems of conflict between motorised vehicles and other users has increased with the rise in sales of four wheel drive vehicles in recent years. The use has centred on ‘honeypot’ areas typically Yorkshire Dales, Peak District, North York Moors and the Home Counties.
Where conflict arises it is often due to misunderstanding or lack of knowledge about the rights that exist.
2.4
The use of byways creates some wear and tear, influenced by axle loading, width, and the speed of the vehicle. At the extreme, a heavy agricultural tractor towing a large wide trailer at perhaps 15-20 mph represents the worst case situation for wear and tear.
Motorcycles generally represent less of a problem, other users are not without blame in this respect. Horses and livestock may cause severe surface damage as they tend to cut up the soft surfaces.
Where maintenance has been neglected, the surface of the byway may become rutted and waterlogged and make the byway impassable to all users. The argument can be put forward that damage is only the result of the original neglect of maintenance by the highway authority.
Weather and the growth of vegetation play their part in physical deterioration. At the least maintenance needs to be sufficient to combat these if the byway resource is to be safeguarded. Drainage is essential. Providing sufficient funds to cover the minimum level of maintenance needed is an important issue even in the absence of motorised use.
3 MANAGEMENT
It is a key conclusion of the research that avoiding problems can be achieved by proactive management by the highway authorities.
3.1
Highway authorities need to ensure policy issues relating to byways are addressed, and establish a broad view of their responsibilities, of the range of byway users and of the resource which byways represent to appreciate conserving the resource and benefiting users. Policy needs to include understanding legal responsibilities, nature of byways in the area, appreciation of use made of byways, and knowledge of the range of maintenance and management measures available:
· Ensure LoS and DM are consistent with each other
· Define status of all routes
· Implement policy of on consultation and objections
· Understand the use of byways
· Implement a maintenance program
· Encourage volunteers
· Devise policy on VR and TROs
· Identify suitable off-road sites away from byways
· Establish links with relevant groups
· Publicise codes of conduct (of users groups)
· Inform non-vehicle users where vehicles may be encountered.
· Devise strategy for dealing with problems
5 MAINTENANCE
5.1 Maintenance is interpreted to include improvements in this section. Besides HAs duties and powers, they have practical reasons for maintaining:
· opportunities for access, enjoyment of the countryside for all, including those with restricted mobility who need to use a motor vehicle
· increase opportunities for cyclists, horse riders, carriage drivers and others to avoid road traffic
· increase ecological diversity
· reduce conflict between byway users.
Legal situation is summarised as:
· Duty to maintain highways on the LoS, and most byways, if only because they were highways pre 31/8/1835.
· Ex RUPPs reclassified under WLCA81
· Powers to improve byways re: signposting, widening, drainage
etc.
HA80 s130 states it is:
· “The duty of the highway authority to assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway for which they are the highway authority including any roadside waste which forms part of it”
· Under common Law a highway authority is under a duty to seek, prevent and remove obstructions.
5.2
DoE Circular 2/93: …the maintenance should be commensurate with the purpose for which byways ARE used throughout the year. Excessive maintenance can be as harmful as lack of maintenance; in the extreme can become ‘urbanised’. Maintenance should be consistent with the purpose for which byways are used, level of amenity, conservation and ensure historical maintenance methods.
5.3
Research shows a major problem is lack of planned maintenance, low priority, maintained ad hoc, or not at all.
The HAs may argue “ ‘lack of funds’ so pointless collecting information”, however it is difficult to justify existing budgets, apart from arguing for an increased budget.
e.g. Wilts had 33 sensitive byways out of 511, surveyed to establish specific causes. Success in identifying causes, and a particular course of action recommended for each.
In some cases a joint survey by officers and volunteers may be appropriate to ensure an impartial view.
e.g. Lincolnshire’s 1,920 kilometres of greenlanes were surveyed by volunteers following a wide ‘green lane’, which was not recorded on DM or LoS, being ploughed out. All green lanes are now recorded, it is hoped this will avoid further lanes being ploughed or closed off.
The majority of byways are likely to be used most intensively between spring and autumn. Horse riders will use byways all year if the conditions are suitable. Byways providing farm and residential access will be used all year round. In some cases farmers may use tracks more intensively in winter to feed stock.
5.4
Vegetation clearance is particularly important when a byway is subject to waterlogging, and ruts develop with the passage of traffic. The exclusion of sun and wind will increase the likelihood of waterlogging.
· Clearance from the surface is the responsibility of the HA
· overhanging vegetation is the responsibility of the owner of the adjoining land.
· this facilitates the passage of users
· assists drying of the byway surface
· helps maintain wildlife habitats
HAs may apply for a magistrates order where a byway is being damaged by exclusion of sun and wind under s136(1) of HA1980. It is an offence not to comply within 10 days of the date stated, or HA can recover the costs in carrying out the work.
Vegetation clearance may encourage species diversity. Byways often provide a rare mix of dense to light shade, open gaps, steep to shallow banks and shelter from wind and agricultural spray drift. They may provide corridors along which butterflies, other insects and small animals can move. Flora is more varied than on adjoining agricultural land but may depend on sufficient light for its survival.
Neglect of these ancient routes can lead to trees and shrubs becoming too heavy for roots to support. Dead, damaged or fallen timber may pose a danger to users of the route. Most plants and insects species thrive best in a mixture of light and shade. Dense, dark conditions can lead to depletion of plant and insect populations.
Effective drainage is critical to maintaining byways, it should be considered number one priority, particularly on clay soils, can be a major cause of surface damage.
An authority should allow time for the drainage and/or vegetation clearance to take effect before considering any further action. During this period Voluntary Restraint or a TRO may be necessary.
The disposal of spoil from ditches on the surface of a route may lead to rutting and the growth of nettles and thistles where none previously existed.
Improvements to the foundation and surface of a byway may be required when:
· drainage and vegetation clearance has failed to produce an acceptable surface
· the existing surface is a danger to users
· some users are unable to use the byway due to physical conditions
The material and thickness used will depend on the traffic loads using the route.
The advantages of carrying out sub-base/surface work are that
· the byway becomes accessible to users all the year round
· it provides access to connect circular walk / cycles routes
· it is a long term solution for all users
· evidence shows that surfacing discourages “cowboy” users whose only enjoyment is getting stuck in mud.
e.g. Wiltshire has received very few complaints in the last 15 years due in part because all routes are reinstated if problems arise from use by farm / forestry vehicles. But more important is the fact that considerable work has been done to byways over the years, thus preventing degradation which would be difficult to remedy.
5.6
Authorities have a duty to carry out maintenance work; landowners / occupiers may also have a duty. Authorities should encourage landowners to carry out vegetation clearance to minimise the potential for rutting and waterlogging from the use of farm machinery. Farmers should be encouraged to consider using light ATVs rather than normal four wheel drive vehicles or tractors, particularly for activities such as feeding livestock etc. Heavier equipment is often preferred because it offers greater comfort. ATVs must be licensed if it is to be used on a byway. Authorities should liaise with the NFU, MAFF and CLA in promoting use of such vehicles by both farmers and foresters.
Parish councils should monitor the condition of routes, so HAs maintenance programs may be regularly updated and priorities altered to take account of changing circumstances.
e.g. In surrey special needs groups transform overgrown tracks by cutting back overgrowth, coppicing unblocking ditches etc. This enables the surface to dry out and improve habitats for flora and fauna. Ramblers, horse riders, mountain bikers, the Trail Riders Fellowship and the All Wheel Drive Club also carry out maintenance work.
Volunteers from the AWDC and many others took part in National Green Lane Day, carrying out maintenance work throughout the country, it serves to demonstrate what can be achieved in co-operation with authorities. The question of liability for accidents can be resolved. Exactly the same checking procedure is adopted when employing a paid contractor. The argument that volunteer labour takes away the work of employees is unfounded. Volunteers should be actively encouraged. Before maintenance work the parish, adjacent landowners, residents and other users should be informed to prevent unnecessary confrontations whilst work is being carried out. Vegetation clearance is particularly controversial if it involves felling, and people are not aware of the long term benefits that will result.
e.g. Hampshire CC sent a letter stating the object: “to create a 3 metre wide path free of surface and overhanging vegetation … It must be emphasised that there is no intention to improve the route so that it can be used by ordinary traffic. Although this lane might / does have public vehicular rights, in main purpose is for recreational use by pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders…”
The user’s “Guardian Lane Scheme” should be supported by authorities like the existing “adopt a Path” scheme. By carrying out regular routine maintenance, minor problems will have less chance of turning into major problems.
6 REGULATION AND RESTRAINT
Voluntary Restraint or TROs may be necessary when carrying out maintenance work. Extinguishing vehicular rights is an extreme measure. Segregation is less extreme but is only applicable in limited situations.
Voluntary Restraint agreements have no legal status but they can be effective. They are advocated by the Government in DoE Circular 2/93 para13. They are also recommended in the House of Lords report on the Environmental Impact of Leisure activities, which recommends authorities collaborative negotiations before resorting to statutory traffic control.
VR is most successfully linked to maintenance or to restrict access during unsuitable times of the year, and may relate to any type of user including walkers horse riders cyclist as well as motor vehicle users.
VR will not be successful without support from users and others. Restraint which is imposed by an authority is not voluntary, and risks being ignored.
The LARA guidelines should be followed by all authorities considering VR. The notices endorsed by the authorities is recommended, and include the expiry date.
e.g.
· It must not extend beyond what is needed.
· Are there alternative routes? Neighbouring alternatives must be unobstructed and clearly available. A ‘secret’ UCR is a poor alternative for a signed BOAT
etc.
6.2
TROs may be made on any highway, however highway authorities are advised to try and solve problems through management measure based on co-operation and agreement. Only where such measure have failed or are considered inappropriate should TROs be used.
e.g. TROs should not be seen as the ‘cure all’. They do require the input of resources which would otherwise be used elsewhere, e.g. on maintenance or on processing new claims. Since TROs do not help to resolve the identified problem, but merely suspend it for the duration of the TRO, they may be most suitable for only the extreme cases and as a last resort …”
(Management of Public Rights of Way .. West Sussex CC)
In considering TROs the HA should take into account:
· … that it only applies to those classes of vehicle which are known to be causing problems ...
· whether a TRO needs to restrict vehicular users at all times of year, it may be:
· seasonal,
· periodic,
· weight or width restricted,
· user related.
· The effect a TRO may have on the surrounding network, it may create or exacerbate problems elsewhere.
· TROs may result in the need for more maintenance, such as vegetation to ensure the route can be used by permitted traffic.
An authority must be able to demonstrate that its reasons fall into one of the stated categories. It would be improper to make an order on the basis of unsubstantiated prejudice against a particular class of user or simply to try to avoid the costs of maintenance An authority proposing a TRO on a pre-emptive basis would need to be able to defend its position by demonstrating a reasonable risk that the situation that it was intended to prevent would arise.
TROs should only be used where there is:
· a proven need
· a valid reason
· a set policy
For all TROs the situation needs to be monitored and reviewed in the light of experience. This is particularly relevant for permanent TROs. Where appropriate an order should be rescinded or modified where it is ineffective or having undesirable effects.
6.3
An authority proposing to extinguish rights must provide evidence the road is unnecessary, magistrates are likely to have regard to whether a byway is used. A highway that is not used may still be deemed necessary.
Extinguishing rights along routes:
· where VR has been exercised
· as a pre-emptive measure where byway are claimed / discovered
will almost certainly result in non co-operation on future agreements and breakdown in any sort of mutual understanding and respect built up between the authority and user groups.
Authorities are strongly advised to consult with all relevant parties before applying.
6.4 If a byway is wide enough and terrain suitable, it may be possible to segregate users.
It may be possible to create alternative footpaths or bridleways, but only likely to be justified if the byway is heavily used, there is conflict between different user groups and landowners are prepared to co-operate, and may be costly.
7 “OFF ROAD” FACILITIES
It may be useful for highway authorities to consider the need for facilities for recreational vehicles, including motorcycles where drivers or riders can face challenging conditions, exercise their driving skill or practice motorsport.
7.1
The provision of sites away from byways is suggested a positive way of minimising conflict. Authorities should take a positive approach in promoting such sites.
7.3
The provision of such facilities should not reduce the need to maintain byways.
It should not be assumed that all motor vehicle users seek such provision. Trail riders or four wheel drive drivers who take pleasure in travelling along historic rights of way are unlikely to want to drive around a purpose built course. However, such users are more likely to be aware of their rights and responsibilities when using byways.
Establishment of liaison groups is welcomed by the Government in Circular 2/93, para 6. These should not just be for rubber stamping what authorities have decided. Representatives should have a genuine input, authorities should aim for consensus so that minority interests are not disadvantaged.
Ideally meetings should be held in the evening or at weekends to enable maximum attendance by those in full time employment.
e.g. Doncaster MBC has shown that a public which understands the rights of others is more likely to work together to protect the countryside.
In association with the Lake District National Park, LARA is leading an initiative which clearly demonstrates what can be achieved through constructive consultation and co-operation between motor vehicle users and an authority:
· Since 1995 a working party of off-tarmac vehicular users have been working with the LDNP on new ideas for better management of vehicular activity in the Park
· Incentive came from realisation 25 years of verbal encounters and legal battling have failed to resolve the issues arising.
· The objective is to bridge the gap between rights, responsibilities, perceptions and use, to form effective management.
· The basic principle is a hierarchy of routes by vehicle type, seasonal sustainability, some which would benefit from more sophisticated management, and special Heritage Byways.
· A key aspect is that it is user led. Users have responsibility in mutual trust.
· Surveys in the SE quarter progressed very well, joint user/ranger visits were a great success, with new understanding developing.
· The scheme in now being extended to cover the rest of the Lake District
8.2
Most friction between motor vehicle users and others arises from the activities of the “cowboy” drivers or riders who are not members of user groups. These individuals need to be made aware of the damage their actions cause to legitimate and responsible enthusiasts, as well as to residents and landowners.
Authorities should consider producing their own codes of conduct and promotional material. (Existing examples The Ridgeway-motor vehicles information, Lake District Green Road code for Vehicle users etc.)
Individuals requesting information from councils about routes suitable for trail bikes or four wheel drive vehicles, or who visit the council office to look at the definitive map or list of streets, should be given a copy of such information.
Authorities should consider producing a map with details of routes which have vehicular rights, based on the DM and LoS. The map could be available on request, rather than widely publicised. Such a map may help users stay on lawful routes.
Wiltshire County Council: Production of the map has not resulted in an influx of four wheel drive vehicles to the area, as some feared. Instead has proved useful in minimising problems of trespass as well as illegal use of Footpaths and bridleways.
Similar information [codes of conduct and details of local user groups] should be given to “safari” operators and off road driving schools.
Signs must be erected where BOATs leave the metalled road and are particularly important where the status changes, although they are usually well defined and more easy to follow than footpaths or bridleways.
9.1
A complainant may blame four wheel drive users for the physical damage to a byway when in reality the problem has been caused by a farmer using the byway to access his fields. In such circumstances focusing attention on four wheel drives would not solve the problem. It is important to thoroughly investigate every problem before trying to resolve it. The CLA advise ‘don’t just do something, stand there’. Many problems are confounded by following the first action thought of.
9.2
To ensure that problems are dealt with in the most appropriate way an authority should establish a strategy for dealing with individual problems.
Stage One -
· are problems perceived or real?
· define the nature and cause(s)
· Acknowledge the status
· Determine private access rights
· Investigate possible wrong recording of status
· Location/importance in network for each class of user
· Past, present, possible future use
· Record of previous complaints
· Previous remedial measure, including maintenance
· Condition of route
Does a problem really exist or not?
If not the complainant should be advised, if so
· who and what is involved?
· what is the source of the problem?
· uncertainty of status
· state of repair
· type of traffic using the RoW
· a combination of the above
Stage Two:-
· investigate status
· ensure promotional material for routes for walkers, cyclists and horse riders make reference to the possible use by motor vehicles
· check maintenance program to establish whether recorded
· carry out, monitor and review vegetation and drainage clearance using volunteers where possible
· Where problems still arise, assess in order and priority, need for:-
· VR
· Seasonal/type/width / weight TRO
· If uncertainty about cause consider an experimental TRO
Stage Three -
· Involving interested parties will be a good way of identifying problems
Stage Four -
· Monitor, by establishing links with user groups etc. Problems informally discussed at an early stage may often be easily resolved, left unresolved may turn into major problems at a later date.
Published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions, July 1997
END
“Rights of Way in the 21st Century”: Extracts from the “Proposals” document from the Countryside Commission.
1. England has 169,000 kms of RoW(1994). It is a significant tourism asset, providing walking and other outdoor activities.
132,000 kms of FP (78%)
29,000 kms of BW (17%)
3,000 kms of byways (2%)
5,000 kms of RUPPs not yet reclassified (3%)
15. The rights of Way network needs to evolve, but there should be no net reduction in the extent or quality of RoW available to the public.
25. HAs should make the “hidden network” of unclassified roads fully available. There is an estimated 10,000 - 15,000 km of unsealed unclassified roads in England. These are essentially carriageways, but are not managed as part of the modern roads network. They are not currently recorded on either road maps or definitive maps of row, and are not therefore readily accessible to recreational users. The vast majority of unclassified roads carry vehicular rights, some highway authorities fear huge additional maintenance.
28 …many legal rights of way are either under-recorded or not recorded at all on the definitive map.
43. In the longer term the Internet may enable HAs to input amendments digitally into a National database.
48. Farmers who break the law on RoW can already be prosecuted, but this has not proved sufficient deterrent, because of HAs lack of consistency and determination in enforcement. There are criticisms of the payment of European grants in respect of crops planted in contravention of the law.
Objective 6: need for more effective sanctions for underperforming highway authorities.
61. Low-key motorised recreational use of such routes by trail bikes and 4wd vehicles is an established form of countryside recreation, should be accommodated as long as it is compatible with other recreational uses and is sustainable in terms of route management.
There is no evidence that a widespread problem exists, HAs should respond in a measured, proportionate way, treating each situation on its merits rather than imposing blanket restrictions.
Motorised users (LARA and its members) should be encouraged to work with HAs to demonstrate such use can be managed sustainably. The Hierarchy of Trail Routes offers a model for this.
62. This approach is entirely compatible with the Government’s recent decision that there is no case for a general ban on the recreational use of motor vehicles on byways, and the Making the Best of Byways guidance published by the DETR.
63. .. we believe that there may also be a good case for reclassifying all remaining RUPPs, by statute, as byways rather than bridleways.
64. Recommendations were made along these lines by a Byways Working Party, reporting to the RWRC, in 1992.
66. The Commission should explore the cost and feasibility of monitoring the usage of the RoW network.
END
Home www.byways.org.uk
04-02-17