The Trust welcomes comments and views. We will post these up on this site, so if your are a council officer, you may wish to make it clear that your comments are not necessarily those of your authority. We are now on version 4d, dated January 2007.
The Byways & Bridleways Trust Equestrian Access Plan 2006 - Wales. Coming soon.
Stock Control Devices on Minor Highways: the Need for Change. (November 2007). This paper is the Trust's opening move in an initiative to improve 'stock control devices' (gates, stiles, etc.) on minor highways for the benefit of the public and landowners alike. This paper will now form the basis of an expanded version via the Rights of Way Review Committee.
James Thomas - Feb 2008
‘Interested person’ and Solicitor for a local authority, although this is purely a personal view.
In general I welcome the plan I would suggest that under the legislative shopping list at 8 in the plan thought is given to the situation where a route’s existence can be proven but part or its entire course cannot be proven to the satisfaction of the Inspector at Public Inquiry. There are no rules and no guidance as to what level of accuracy on the balance of probabilities is required to determine the course of a route. Generally large-scale OS maps are accepted as sufficiently accurate although they may have about 5% error.
Should it really be necessary for the precise course of a route to be proven on the balance of probabilities? Perhaps the standard adopted for a claimed route based on documentary evidence should be balance of probability for its existence and reasonable grounds to allege for its alignment with the inspector required to decide its most likely course. Otherwise many Discovering Lost Ways applications will result in cul de sac or routes will fail altogether even when it is clear the public have lost the use of a highway.
With regard to the comments from Mike Furniss of Land Aspects Ltd I agree road verges should be maintained under S71 Highway Act and could help connectivity of routes in a few places. However they cannot be a substitute for more routes and if used in some circumstances could put horse riders at even greater risk. If the verge is relatively narrow equestrians may be safer ( but still at high risk) to ride in the middle of the road to force traffic to pass slowly.
I feel I have to comment on Andy Overton’s remarks about policy 6.3. “it is a fact that equestrian use does churn up tracks” and goes on to ask who is to fund the maintenance of the “visible tracks”. It is true that heavy equestrian use can damage surfaces the fact that happens would suggest the existing network is inadequate with horses being forced on to a very few overused routes. The policy would reduce that problem by creating more routes. Further in rural areas most damage to tracks whether bridleways, footpaths, Byways or Occupation Roads is caused by heavy agricultural vehicles. Damage from horses or cyclists is insignificant in comparison.
Andy Overton also states “if you walk a bridleway you know what to expect, you don’t expect to find a footpath churned up by horses”. Such a view is naive. Many footpaths are used by horse riders already. Often the landowner has given permission or the footpath is part of an access route to land grazed by horses, in areas of poor higher rights provision trespassing by horse riders may occur if tolerated by the landowner this may lead to a valid claim for bridleway status at a later date Still more footpaths will be churned up, not by the hoofs of horses but by the cloven feet of cattle. If you go for a walk in the country you should anticipate the possibility of getting near to large domestic animals and getting muddy. Long may that possibility remain, that is what divides the rural from the suburban. The issue of disabled access should not be used as a way of urbanising the countryside. That logic will end with a stair lift up Scafell. It is of course possible that the horses “churning up tracks” are ridden by disabled individuals.
From Mike Furness, Land Aspects Ltd. 5.12.2006:
I’ve just read with interest the Trust’s Equestrian Access Plan 2006. There is much of value in there but I would welcome further consideration of the role of minor roads in (re-) constructing equestrian access networks. I have recently been looking in detail at a small area of Oxfordshire and found that, despite a reasonable ‘density’ of bridleways (in terms of metres/km2) there is no actual network because of poor road conditions between the bridleways. What is needed to re-create a decent network, in this case, is not the addition of new routes but a combination of provision of verges on some roads and, perhaps, Quiet Lane designation on others to provide usable links between the existing bridleways.
Leaving aside the issue of Quiet Lanes, which are potentially useful but not yet proven, and concentrating on improving verges (margins); S.71 HA80 places a duty on highway authorities to provide adequate margins ‘where they consider [them]… necessary or desirable …’ That is, if a HA decides, perhaps through its ROWIP or on the advice of its LAF, that it is desirable to have adequate margins for the accommodation of ridden horses, it has a duty to provide them. Note that there is no need to prove a safety concern before the duty falls on the HA, just the need to show that the margins are desirable.
Furthermore, the provision of off-road, alternative routes for non-motorised users is great, but it chips away at the fundamental right of all users to use (most of) the road network. Without access along roads even walkers have no network, just a denser collection of disconnected bundles of public paths.
To summarise: I contend that in many areas the biggest improvement that can be made for all non-motorised access, but especially equestrian, is to reclaim the roads that provide links between existing bridleways and byways. The legislation to do this already exists.
Comments from Andrew Overton (contributor to B&B):
Proposal 1: I feel that too much faith is being put in the enthusiasm and competence of LAFs. Whilst it is undoubtedly the case that some LAFs are peopled with knowledgeable and keen individuals from a wide range of backgrounds it is certainly also the case that a good number (the majority?) are struggling to keep going already. These invalids usually have the default representatives on board from RA, BHS etc. but it has to be recognised that in many cases the representatives from these organisations are in post 'because someone has to do it', rather than through any aptitude, competence or genuine desire to do the work. HAs are struggling in many cases to attract representation from other than 'the usual suspects'. I question whether LAFs in many areas of the country are worth the time and effort that it takes the local HA to run them- in fact many are so poor that they are merely there to 'rubber stamp' anything the HA suggests and never bring to the table any ideas or initiatives of their own. With this state of affairs extant I feel that encouraging a national roll-out of 'case dialogue' procedures with DMMOA led by LAFs will be doomed to failure. The principle of 'case dialogues' is a good one, however, I just question whether LAFs are the right bodies to lead on it by default.
Proposal 4: I am not opposed to the principle of allowing HDVs onto BRs but to follow a theme close to your heart, what would be deemed to be 'a sufficient width'? I suggest that if you are to allow vehicles with a width up to 5' 0" to use a BR then it must be of at least a general width of, say, 10' 6" to allow opposing traffic to pass (HDVs cannot reverse to a passing place, unlike a motor vehicle, of course). This is not an insurmountable provision but it must be incorporated.
Item 5: Another obstacle which is severely restricting volunteer effort is the current litigation culture. I have tried myself to engage in volunteer work in conjunction with my HA and they simply will not get involved due to fears over litigation- they cannot insure me under their own insurance and it is too expensive for me (or any organisation I represent) to foot the bill. This is massive problem and one which I know the H&S Executive is trying to address via a task force and guidance but in the short term local authorities are very loath to get involved with volunteers. This issue has to be addressed, and soon, before the volunteering culture baton is lost forever, not having been passed on to the next generation. A lead from central government and the Local Government Association is long overdue- it is all very well spinning out 'The Year of the Volunteer' catchphrase but the reality on the ground doesn't support it, for reasons which those in positions of authority should be only too well aware.
Proposal 5: Have you ever seen the RA's information pack "Guidance to Footpath Workers"? It is given out to FP Secretaries and addresses most of the needs of anyone new to the legislation and procedures of RoW. Try and get to see a copy from a friendly FP Sec. as it would only take the smallest amount of tweaking to be directly applicable to an equestrian activist.
Item 6.3: It is a fact that equestrian use does churn up tracks where the ground is soft to the extent that passage on foot can be difficult, and all but impossible for the less able. This is much more of a problem with horses than with bicycles. If a 'right to ride' over footpaths were to be introduced who would be responsible for putting good this damage? The HA certainly has to maintain the path to a standard sufficient for the authorised traffic so would have to repair the damage but it would not be liable to provide a surface that could cope with equestrian use. Or would it? If equestrians had the right to ride then the traffic would be 'authorised' thus placing a whole new burden on HAs and a lot more problems for walkers. If you walk a BR you know what to expect, you don't expect to find a FP churned up by horses. I can see massive resistance to this proposal from the walking lobby and I have to say I would be supportive of their stance. Access must follow an agreement to provide a suitable surface (and perhaps routes would have to be signed to denote where the right to ride has been granted) not vice versa.
