External Affairs / Policy / Consultations Consultations
Mechanically propelled vehicles and rights of way
12th March 2004
William Propert-Lewis
Countryside (Recreation and Landscape) Division 5
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Zone 1/01, 2 The Square, Temple Quay
Bristol, BS1 6EB
Dear Sir
Consultation on Use of Mechanically Propelled Vehicles on Rights of Way
I refer to the Consultation Document on the above subject of December 2003 and present the response by the Institute for Outdoor Learning.
The Institute, as a registered charity, was formed three years ago as the result of the convergence of six outdoor organizations. We represent probably the broadest spectrum across the industry of any existing organization. Our members include employers and employees involved in walking, mountaineering, personal development, outdoor activities, watersports and field studies. Our members are present in outdoor centres, educational establishments, some small providers and they may work for charities, local authorities commercial enterprises or themselves.
Firstly a small administrative point in that as a result of discussions with your other colleagues we are now apparently on your list for consultation we were not listed as such in annex 4.
Proposal 1
We are in full agreement that you should issue a Department circular
covering the present powers available to the enforcing authorities
for those using vehicles on rights of way illegally, anti-socially
and harmfully in sensitive areas.
Proposal 2
There will be a number of different Management iniatives that will
be successful, according to local circumstances in achieving the
objectives of the Consultation. We do not have a copy of the 1997
Making the Best of Byways, but wonder if this is the publication
edited by one of the L.A.R.A. officials?
We believe that highway authorities should consult and be advised
by their Local Access Forums on these issues. They are representative
of a wide number of organisations and have the local knowledge to
give advice which should be in the interests of all users, whilst
taking into consideration the harm that is being carried out on
some Byways by mechanically operated vehicles.
Proposal 3
Agreed.
Proposal 4
We believe that this proposal could by unnecessarily harsh on the
owners of property that depend upon their right of access by a byway
which is at present open to mechanically propelled vehicles as an
unrecorded public vehicular.
We note that there is a one year period for such rights to be registered
and shown on the definitive map but consider that owners who are
not permanently resident such as properties owned or rented by climbing
and walking clubs may not be aware of the local requirements or
the nuances of this legislation. You may like to consider that one
of the permanent exceptions should be that the users of any property
using a byway have a right of access by mechanically propelled vehicle
without the need for registration. The alternative should be that
highway authorities should serve a notice on the owners of such
properties. This would not be a major task because presumably they
will be on the local rating register.
Proposal 5
We are aware of statements that the processing of applications by
some highway authorities will take a considerable number of years,
based on their present progress in determining applications.
The last two lines of this proposal seem to be in conflict with
the Minister's Forward to the Consultation paper.
Proposal 6
See our comment in Proposal 4 on this subject. We would add that
forcefully taking away rights of access to a property must raise
very serious human rights issues that could be the subject of litigation.
However, the future clarification of a private right of way having
restricted byway rights must only be in respect of mechanically
propelled vehicles using it for access to a particular property.
Otherwise, you would open the door to any rider/driver using the
byway. You may think that enforcement may be difficult but local
owners would soon report transgressors!
Proposal 7
We would concur with the proposal to bring forward the date by which
byways can be registered from 2026 to say ten years after the legislation
becomes law. However, there must be local administrative processes
which can deal with this change.
Policy Statement
Having little experience of the legal complexity within the legislation
that you quote and being a little uncertain about the detailed implications
of some of the proposals, we feel that a statement on our policy
might be useful.
"We respect the rights of all users of the countryside together
with landowners and tenants of the land. We believe that there may
be highways where it is appropriate for all users whether on foot,
horse, cycle, mechanically propelled vehicles etc. to have access
and others where it is inappropriate. Therefore rather than blanket
restrictions it would be better if the local highway authorities,
advised by local access forums, should make the appropriate recommendations
to local authorities and/or national park authorities on which highways
should become restricted byways. This power should be subject of
change over time if local circumstances or issues change."
Other Concerns
A number of users involved in Adventure Activities may use highways,
that may become restricted byways for essential access to wild &
mountainous areas:-
1 Mountain & Cave Rescue teams where speed is essential and the
carrying of huge amounts of equipment on foot is almost out of the
question. This sometimes involves the deployment of mobile control
vehicles.
2 We have received a comment from members of the Duke of Edinburgh's
Award Scheme that invigilators need to quickly rendezvous with groups
and then 'leap frog' ahead with support vehicles. We understand
that this is mainly in moorland areas.
Yours faithfully
Allan Myatt
Chair
Institute for Outdoor Learning
Please note that any correspondence should be sent to:
Brian Lamb, Greystone Cottage, Bere Ferrers, Devon, PL20 7JX
01822 841309
Briankay1@talk21.com