This is the text of a leaflet that came through the door of my house in Waterside, Chesham:
“The current threat of Byways Open to All Traffic (BOATs) is exercising all Lib Dem town councilors. Bottom Lane, Trapps Lane and Bunns Lane are in Waterside and Townsend wards, but these bridleways are used and enjoyed by people from all over Chesham and further afield. At Present, walkers, horse riders, cyclists and wildlife use these bridleways in harmony but motorized vehicles are likely to damage the surface, make noise and frighten other users.
Bucks County Council originally found that there wasn’t enough evidence to show that these lanes should be upgraded to BOATs but an appeal by the TRF (Trail Riders Fellowship) has been allowed by the DEFRA inspector. His decision is based entirely on interpretation of old documents and no consideration could be given to wildlife, ancient hedgerows Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, tranquility, suitability or safety concerns.
Councillors urge everyone who has any knowledge of these lanes to dispute the inspector’s interpretation of the documentary evidence. Objections must be made within only six weeks from the date opf the publication of the Orders in the newspapers and must be in writing to the Head of Legal and Administrative Services, Bucks County Council. The date and the address will be given in the notice – no objections received before or after the six week period will be considered, so if you have written already you will need to write again.
If you are worried you might miss the publication of the orders, please contact one of your local Lib Dem councilors. There will be a public meeting at the Town Hall soon after the ordes are published so make sure you are there to make yourself heard.
Contact your Local Liberal Democrat Team
Justine Fulford – 01494 792478
Philip Murphy – 01494 776469
Jane Bramwell – 01494 775237
Or email us on
[email protected]”
After several emails between Justine and myself and myself and Andy Gerrard of the TRF:
Justine's key points:
"If vehicular rights exist on these lanes they will be protected but it is proper that if there is any doubt there should be a thorough scrutiny of the evidence at a Public Inquiry. As public vehicular rights were not exercised throughout the 20th Century, the doubt over their existence is understandable.
"By increasing the users of these lanes ... the perception will be that an increase in litter (in an area which presently does not suffer from this problem) can be attributed to motorists."
The only litter I have seen on these lanes is flytipping at the entrances, unquestionably caused by motorists.
"[the] lanes are not open to TRF or any other user of motorised vehicles until the Orders are confirmed. They have never been BOATS, their only formal classification has ever been bridleways".
"Bottom Lane would make a very nice shortcut for a 4 wheel drive owner wanting to avoid traffic congestion in the Town who didn't care too much about the paintwork" [ELP COMMENT: THIS IS BALONY!! IT WOULD TAKE ABOUT 15 MINS TO GET THROUGH TOWN IN RUSH HOUR AND AT BEST ABOUT 10 THROUGH THIS LANE]
"...designated greenbelt and of outstanding natural beauty."
"There will be a public meeting at the Town Hall when the Orders are published, do come along and give the other side of the argument, TRF have been very quiet so far."
Andy/My key points:
These routes have been identified by the independent government inspector as open to all users and that the government stance is one of working with rightful users, not excluding them – ie. inclusivity, not exclusivity.
The re-classification programme that has substantially reduced the number of bridleways open to motor vehicles nationwide even though “motoring” is recognized as an essential part of the countryside. Indeed, it is the minority of ALL bridleway users who damage the wildlife, ancient hedgerows etc. rather than all motorists.
Most litter comes from pedestrians and more track damage comes from horses.
I fear this will only encourage irresponsible use of these and other routes
Her arguments are inconsistant. On one hand she seems more concerned about the harmony of vehicles, horse riders, walkers and wildlife and says that the decision was made by the DEFRA inspector based “entirely on interpretation of old documents, and no consideration has been given to wildlife…”. Yet, in direct contradiction, she suggests that the exercising of vehicular rights is under question because they never existed.
the reclassification of rights of way was exercised in a blanket manner and that many (in fact most) BOATs in Bucks we arbitrarily closed to motorized vehicles
In these particular cases, the Rights of Way were re-opened after the appeal by the TRF, only after a thorough inspection of the supporting documentation by the DEFRA inspector – suggesting that there is sufficient evidence to support vehicular rights.
If flytipping is her concern, then there are numerous other, non-exclusive means controlling this problem and working WITH the TRF and other groups will only serve to benefit all members of society. The closure of BOATs may move the flytippers on to other areas, but it also excludes a significant section of society for their rightful use of these lanes within the countryside.
And specifically from Andy regarding the meeting:
3 of my original claims have been thrown out (I am appealing), 1 accepted - so will be subject to the same hysteria as these. I've lost count of the threats I've received simply for exercising my legal rights so am not holding my breath as to a successful outcome. Opposition to one lane has involved at least 3 sets of solicitors....
That sounds cynical but our experience nationwide is that the hysteria drummed up by the antis simply cannot be argued against face to face at "local" meetings. We can only rely on the reasonable interpretation of an inspector at the PI and the strength of the local authority not to immediately TRO in the aftermath of a successful conclusion.
And that's about it for now!
