use of mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way


	Proposal 5

	We propose that applications for definitive map modification orders (DMMOs) to recognise vehicular rights submitted before the end of the one-year cut off date will be processed to their conclusion. Similarly orders already in progress will be processed to final determination. We propose to introduce the register of applications for DMMOs prior to commencing the relevant new legislation. We do not intend to review or amend the rights attached to ways already shown in the definitive map and statement as byways open to all traffic.

14	As stated above, there should be only one cut-off date of 2026.

15	We are not clear how processing to final determination will be possible in view of the extinguishment in 2026 unless these cases jump the queue for processing and so prejudice other paths.

	Proposal 6

	We propose that an easement conferring a private right of way for vehicles for the benefit of an owner or occupier should be recognised where (before the commencement of new legislation) a public right of way has arisen, which would before the one year cut off date have been treated as a right of way for vehicles, and is now being treated as giving rise to restricted byway rights.

16	We oppose this proposal. When owners and occupiers built their properties they would have satisfied themselves either that private access rights existed or a public right of access existed. If it was the former, their private right will continue. If it was the latter, we do not see why they should continue to have a private right when the public right has been taken away. If the proposed one-year cut off were to be implemented, they should be equally subject to it.

	Proposal 7

	We invite views on bringing forward the 2026 cut off date under section 56 of the 2000 Act and section 54A of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for the purposes of recording byways open to all traffic based on evidence of mechanically propelled vehicular use.

17	As stated above we oppose bringing forward the 2026 cut-off date.

	Conclusion

18	We are concerned that Defra seems to think that all vehicular use of rights of way is damaging. This is not so, it is wrong to treat vehicular users any differently from walkers and riders. If highway authorities did their job and recorded routes on the definitive map at the correct standard, and maintained those routes to a suitable standard, there would be much less of a problem. Also if they or the police were prepared to enforce against unlawful use that too would solve the majority of the problems.

19	Much of the vehicular damage is in fact caused by private, especially agricultural, vehicles and these proposals do nothing to address that. Government should turn its attention to solving that problem, for example by requiring those private bodies and individuals who cause damage to make it good.

20	There are far bigger issues facing government and local authorities than vehicular use of rights of way, for example getting the definitive map completely up-to-date by 2026 and taking action to protect the thousands of paths which are illegally obstructed every year by agricultural activities, as well as the many paths which surveys have shown are difficult to use.

21	The government and local authorities should be concentrating on these issues and not spending time trying to take away people’s lawful rights when there is no good reason to do so.

	USE OF MECHANICALLY PROPELLED VEHICLES ON RIGHTS OF WAY DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS RESPONSE FROM THE OPEN SPACES SOCIETY MARCH 2004 Introduction
1	1. The Open Spaces Society, founded in 1865, is Britain’s oldest national conservation body. A registered charity, we campaign to create and conserve common land, village greens, open spaces and rights of public access, in town and country, in England and Wales.

2	The society is unique in representing all categories of legitimate user on all categories of public rights of way.

3	Therefore the Open Spaces Society is not necessarily opposed to motor vehicles using public rights of way. At our annual general meeting in 1987 we passed a resolution ‘to ensure that motor vehicular use is so controlled or restricted as not to interfere unreasonably with quiet enjoyment of the countryside’. However, a motion in 1996 that ‘byways open to all traffic should be closed to vehicles except for access’ was not passed.

	Proposal 1

	We will develop a strategy to disseminate and better inform the police, local authorities, the courts and others about the extensive powers and penalties already available for dealing with vehicles using rights of way illegally, anti-socially, or, in sensitive areas, harmfully. As a first step, we will be issuing a Departmental Circular shortly covering the use of the powers in paragraphs 6.1-7.5 below, with particular reference to encouraging the better understanding and appropriate use of traffic regulation orders.

4	We strongly support the use of existing powers and a departmental circular to set out clearly how the powers may be used and to encourage understanding and use of traffic regulation orders (TROs). However, unless there is a significant increase in resources to make and enforce TROs, they are unlikely to be used.

5	The circular also needs to make it clear that highway authorities cannot use TROs to get out of their duty to maintain paths to a suitable standard. We are aware that Powys County Council in Wales has abused TROs in this way and would not wish to see this being repeated elsewhere.

6	The whole issue would be greatly assisted by speedy commencement of section 47 of the CROW Act, on restricted byways.

	Proposal 2

	We invite views on the revision of the advice and guidance on managing the different sorts of traffic on vehicular rights of way in the publication Making the Best of Byways (1997). We will also publish the results of the research project on the use of byways open to all traffic, which will be used to inform the revision of Making the Best of Byways.

7	While we support proposal 2, we are deeply concerned that Defra has consulted on proposals for restricting mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way before it has the results of the research project mentioned here. Clearly that is the wrong way round. It may well be that the research results show that there is not much of a problem, or that the problems that occur can be dealt with by using the powers available in sections 6 and 7 of the consultation paper.

	Proposal 3

	We propose to introduce legislation to provide that any future use of a footpath or bridleway that would (immediately before the commencement of the relevant new legislation) have given rise to a public right of way for vehicles shall be treated as giving rise to restricted byway rights, but no other public rights of way. This will prevent any future usage giving rise to claims for public rights of way for mechanically propelled vehicles.

8	This proposal is muddled. It seems unlikely that any future use of a footpath or bridleway by horse and cart only will give rise to a public right of way for vehicles.

9	However, assuming that this proposal means that use by bicycles cannot give rise to claims for mechanically propelled vehicles, we have no objection.

	Proposal 4

	We propose to introduce legislation, which will make it no longer possible to establish the existence of a byway open to all traffic by reference to historic (pre-commencement) use by, or other evidence relating to, non-mechanically propelled vehicles. We propose to do this by introducing a cut-off date after which (subject to certain exceptions) any unrecorded rights of way for vehicles shall be recorded as restricted byways in the definitive map and statement. We propose the cut-off date should be one year from the commencement of the new legislation. Exceptions We consider it should be possible to show that the public have a right of way for vehicles where the right arose (1) by virtue of an express dedication for mechanically propelled vehicles; (2) by virtue of any enactment authorising use by mechanically propelled vehicles; or (3) by virtue of any qualifying use by mechanically propelled vehicles[1]. This means that applications to record byways open to all traffic can continue to be made until the end of 2025 where they are supported by evidence of lawful use by mechanically propelled vehicles.


10	We strongly oppose this. It proposes to do away with the legitimate rights of vehicular users for no good reason. The paper seems to be based on the idea that use by mechanically propelled vehicles since 1930 was illegal, which is untrue. Defra is proposing this when it does not even have the research demonstrating that there is a major problem.

11	A cut-off date of one year from the commencement of a new legislation is unacceptable. It will merely lead to a large number of claims, possibly many of them spurious, from motorised users which will clog up the system and cause highway authorities to get even further behind with their definitive map work.

12	The speed of legislation proposed will prevent the Lost Ways initiative and funding from being applied to these ways, thus inevitably failing to record many of them. We have seen no justification for treating these ways less favourably.

13	We are already opposed to the cut-off date of 2026 for other rights of way. So we consider that the cut-off for vehicular users should remain at 2026 and not be brought forward.