This is Herefordshire Ramblers’ Association (RA) thoughts on the following consultation;

USE OF MECHANICALLY PROPELLED VEHICLES ON RIGHTS OF WAY

1. The (RA) acknowledge that under current legislation byways open to all traffic (BOATs) are available, as of right, to all classes of user, including those in mechanically propelled vehicles. We are also very aware that there are many other rights of way, either not recorded at all, or presently recorded as footpaths, bridleways  or Roads Used as Public Paths (RUPPs) or, in due course, restricted byways which may also carry full vehicular rights. The RA believes that use of such unsurfaced ways by mechanically propelled vehicles is not appropriate in the 21st century. The primary reasons for our view are as follows:

(i)    Unsurfaced routes cannot sustain use by mechanically propelled vehicles. Such usage destroys the surface and creates deep ruts and areas of mud which render routes either unusable or dangerous or unpleasant for use by other classes of user. (ii)    The main reasons for visiting the countryside are to experience the peace and quiet it offers, but this experience is destroyed by the incursions of mechanically propelled vehicles into the rights of way network.

(iii)   The activities of mechanically propelled vehicles can be intimidating and present physical dangers to other classes of user.

(iv)   The presence and activities of mechanically propelled vehicles, and the efforts by off-road activists to open up routes for motor vehicles, disturb wildlife and destroys habitats.

This is the usual RA mantra. We have 98.5% of RoW absolutely free of public vehicle recorded rights, we also want the rest.

We have the right to roam, we want more.

We don’t care about the less mobile getting access to the countryside. We don’t care if that means splitting families up, those that can walk, do, those that can’t can sit in the car.

98% of people don’t drive vehicles on vehicular RoW so we won’t let anybody do what we don’t want to do.

96% of people don’t ride horses on bridleway RoW so they will be easier to pick off next. And cyclists too.

(The argument that footpaths were not for Rambling but for local people to get from A-B or cottage to farm is not even specious.)

The fact that there is 3,000 times MORE agricultural use of Vehicles in the countryside than recreational use is just an inconvenient statistic we don’t think about.

As we have more footpaths than we can keep open, we do not want any more, it does not matter that many are overgrown, and that BOATs are 6 TIMES EASIER to use than footpaths DUE to leisure vehicle users is not our fault. We like to use BOATs for walking, as they are so much easier, just so long as no vehicle uses them. Despite several reports saying all types of user have a improved experience of a visit to the countryside by the interest in seeing and meeting other users INCLUDING VEHICLES!

We no there are NO vehicular RoW damaged (by leisure use) in Herefordshire, but we can still argue “well it might happen”. Although most of our members have NEVER met a recreational Vehicle, we still have the right to object to other people having access to the Countryside, which is against what WE say they can do. We have failed to identify ONE SINGLE RoW in Herefordshire that has been damaged by RVs. We are disappointed we cannot identify a single accident in the County, (or any other) which was caused by an RV.

We do not research under recorded routes, we have too many already. The fact that byways are enhanced by the mix of habitats, and shown to be correct by ALL independent reports is not a fact we wish to promote.

2. We welcome, without reservation, the government's recognition that the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way is a real and growing problem, but despite its laudable aims we find the consultation paper weak on dealing with existing problems. As the government has resolved to take a fresh look at the issue, it is pertinent to look again at Parliament's intentions in legislating for RUPPs, (and ultimately BOATs), and the historical reasons for the classification.

As said above Vehicle users only have 1.85% of the RoW network (BOATs), and when we have removed other’s RIGHTs on RUPP’s we then intend to come back for BOATs as well. What Government said was ILLEGAL use is a growing problem, but we will overlook that!

3. Section 27 of the National Parks and Countryside Act 1949 provided that in addition to every footpath and bridleway there should be a classification of highways shown on the definitive map called Roads Used as Public Paths (RUPPs). RUPPs were defined as 'a highway, other than a public path, which is used by the public mainly for the purposes for which footpaths and bridleways are so used'. This definition and the pre-cursor recommendations from the Dower report demonstrate that the concept of a RUPP was more akin in concept to the new Restricted Byway and that maintenance need only be commensurate with the ordinary non-motorised use. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was designed to clarify the law on RUPPs and reflect vehicular rights through their reclassification as BOATs. Yet again Parliament took the opportunity to define these ways as ' ... used by the public mainly for the purposes for which footpaths and bridleways are so used.'

They were ordinary roads used for all purposes, (and by MPVs for 150 years since the early external combustion engines) but used mainly as FP & BWs, so were also to be recorded on the DM&S so they would not be lost.

4.  We submit that Parliament never intended that vehicular rights over these ways to take precedent over the rights of non-motorised users. Over the last fifty years motor traffic has increased exponentially along with the nature and size of these vehicles. While the consultation document recognises that the use by vehicles in many cases has become inappropriate and unsustainable, Government needs to reiterate the true origins of the definition of these routes, and to develop policy on the principle that non-motorised users rights, and the preservation of the character of these ways, take precedent, returning them to the type of sustainable use so envisaged.

Although to be fair no one has suggested they should or do take precedence. There is room for all in the countryside, only we want to promote our members interests to the total exclusion of all others. That is our holy grail, even more important than improving the network for everyone.

5. In addition we believe this is an opportunity for DEFRA to work with the off-road community to develop a strategy which will allow off-road facilities to be appropriately sited and developed in order to meet an undoubted demand. We would support such moves.

We also feel that all muddy footpaths should be closed, as a right to trample round Tesco’s Car Park will be far more convenient. Special sites are a lucrative diversity for farmers for those that wish to drive competitively, for those that appreciate, care for, clear fallen trees and brambles from ancient highways, we can only say again Might is Right there is no room for minority interests in a Democracy is there?

DEFRA PROPOSAL 1:

Agree with the HLAF comments but would add

The RA welcomes this proposal and hopes that, since it will not require any legislative changes, the Departmental Circular will be issued as a matter of urgency. This is an authoritative statement by a government department on the many powers which already exist to deal with the problems associated with vehicular use of rights of way.

Powers to deal with illegal use have been provided. Something ALL law abiding citizens want. As some of the other proposals will take time to implement, there seems no point in delaying the introduction of this until the other sections can be introduced. If there is damage from ILLEGAL use it must be dealt with NOW. Note that IF this proposal worked well, NONE of the other proposals would be required. DEFRA amazingly “ADMIT Authorities are not aware of the powers available to them”. Advise them, ensure they are used, THEN, and only then, IF there is still a problem, consider how much more needs to be done.

Remove the rights of LAWFULL users, and you have:

More potential unlawful users, no alternative legal options, no Code of Conducts, no peer pressure,  no leader to show they responsible way. No direct channels of communication. More illegal riding on ANY open ground, woodland, common moorland, private land, bridleways, footpaths etc etc etc.  To think vehicular use will just cease is naive in the extreme. Few would want a purpose built track to ride or drive or indeed walk round, planning would be near impossible, and insurance next to unobtainable.

TROs FB

DEFRA PROPOSAL 2:

There is a massive misconception within the off-road community, perpetuated by those representing them, that it is for non-motorised users to compromise because a byway is just as much a vehicular road as a tarmacked version. This is often accompanied by derisory suggestions that these users either live with it or defer their rights by avoiding byways . These misconceptions have not been helped by such documents as Making the Best of Byways which concentrates on compromise between motorised and non- motorised users, maintenance of these ways for vehicles, with a ban as the very last resort.

This is the typical ignorance and intolerance promoted by one ill informed group. MBoB has been regarded as useful so far is it goes. Further advice and update is required, and being undertaken. The only compromise required is that on the 1.85% of BOATs they do not PREVENT lawful use of MVs. Note many types of MPVs are still, rightly, unlawful on BOATs (quad bikes, unregistered bikes etc). RA do not compromise. They have 100% of the network. Most of it Exclusively!

DEFRA PROPOSAL 3:

We assume that this proposal means that usage of a way by horse drawn carriages and possibly cycles should not give rise to full vehicular rights, we welcome this clarification of the law.

Clarification for the avoidance of doubt of the current position.

DEFRA PROPOSAL 4:

We as Ramblers fully support the thinking behind these proposals and proposed outcome but we do have concerns about how any legislation would operate in practice.

This is manifestly unjust to lawful users, utterly ineffective against unlawful use. Will lead to under-researched but often valid claims, delaying others, and putting ‘planning-blight’ on properties until determined.

DEFRA PROPOSAL 5:

If the legislation is to bite and so prevent the recording of many new ways at byway status, and to prevent the upgrading of existing rights of way to byway status, which is its clear intention, then a short lead-in is imperative. We are very concerned however that even one year, would lead to large numbers of applications for ways to be added to the map. This might well have the effect of creating a log-jam within local authorities which are already struggling to deal with claims for routes to be added to the definitive map. More importantly, a large number of BOAT claims would ultimately be processed, and shown on the definitive map at that status. We are firmly of the view that the cut-off date should be at commencement of the relevant new Act. To give claimants a year's grace undermines the whole concept of the provision. If Government believes that the present situation is indeed 'a perverse anomaly' then it should be dealt with as soon as possible.

Although we must stress that we welcome the Government's approach as set out the present consultation paper, we are disappointed that it does nothing specific to address the problems which are presently being experienced on existing BOATs. As the RA 'At Risk' register shows all too graphically, there are paths within our most precious landscapes— National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty—and paths which form part of our National Trails, notably the Ridgeway and parts of the Pennine Way, which have been, and are still being, damaged by recreational use of mechanically propelled vehicles. We urge the Government to re- consider its decision not to take action at the national level to protect those routes. Not to do so as part of the present exercise seems illogical.

A further obsessive, ill-informed rant, which is not cogent.

DEFRA PROPOSAL 6:

We generally agree with HLAF response.

A minefield of problems. Why chuck the baby out with the bathwater? The Easements show the lack of consideration and clear thinking behind the response. It will adversely affect ten or hundreds of thousands of households, making some unsaleable, and others facing years of uncertainty, or liable to pay many tens of thousands of pounds for an easement. It will affect scores of different types of countryside users.

See http://www.byways.org.uk/05%20Who%20uses%20byways%20and%20RUPPs.htm

Note s34a was the result of an eleventh hour CLA/RA amendment that was ill considered but accepted to get the Bill through even though it was a non-starter, and now dropped.

DEFRA PROPOSAL 7:

Since applications for BOATs to be added to the definitive map would be few in numbers following the introduction of legislation as proposed in the present paper, we do not see an overriding reason for not bringing forward the cut off date for such routes.

As vehicle users are the ones who spend more time researching Lost Ways, if the cut off is brought forward even less ways will ever be claimed. Out Heritage and Ecology will be all the poorer. Ramblers never will. These are Roads used for generations, excluded from Tithes, Disowned for Taxation under the 1910FA, have no registered owner. They will simply be ploughed out, fenced off, encroached and lost forever. Therefore to bring forward the cut-off serves no one well.

Contrast this with Bucks, a County that has the potential for far more pressure and hence problems. Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee Byways Open to All Traffic (BOATs) A report following the Committee's investigation into the issue of BOATs including proposals for the County Council's response to DEFRA consultation on the topic of the "Use of mechanically propelled vehicles on Rights of Way" http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/cabinet_papers/council/bcc_20040122_item7a.pdf

"16. Members of the OSC were struck by the level of unanimity amongst the visitors who spoke at their meeting. For example, the representative of the Ramblers Association (RA), stated that they recognize the rights of everybody to claim and protect their rights and could even see instances where recording a BOAT could benefit all users of the countryside. The British Horse Society (BHS) also supports reclassification where it is legally correct, particularly as they also represent carriage drivers who are users of BOATs. The BHS is of the view that riders have to expect other forms of traffic on BOATs. Conversely the speakers representing users of motorised vehicles acknowledged the difficulties that could occur for other users of ROW if paths became deeply rutted and damaged.

17. The RA nationally is lobbying the Government for more effective use of legislation to curb inappropriate traffic on BOATs and each of the organizations represented would support at least the principle of what the RA is trying to do. Clearly illegal and irresponsible use of ROW is a major problem and anything that could be done to curb that would be of benefit to all people who seek to enjoy the countryside.

18. Each of the speakers emphasised the importance of good maintenance and in this regard approved the advice contained in "Making the Best of Byways" which is also endorsed by the Institute of Public Rights of Way Officers (IPROW). This publication is subtitled "A Practical Guide on Managing the Use of Vehicles on Public Rights of Way" and it sets out "specific measures which can be taken to protect [byways] as a resource and to benefit a variety of users". It was written by a group containing representatives from, among others, the Ramblers Association, the Countryside Commission (now known as the Countryside Agency), the Motoring Organizations' Land Access and Recreation Association (LARA), the British Horse Society, the County Surveyors' Society and the NFU. This publication, which will be referred to a number of times in this report, is recognized by a wide range of knowledgeable opinion as the definitive guide to the issue of how to deal with the issue of vehicular use of ROW.

19. The IPROW has undertaken research that shows that the problems are more perceived than real. They estimate that, nationwide, only about 5% of routes are likely to be able to be claimed as BOATS and only a small percentage of those would be accessible to motorised vehicles. The figures in Buckinghamshire are most unlikely to be higher than these."

Home www.byways.org.uk