Hampshire County Council

Executive Member - Recreation & Heritage Item 1

18 February 2004

Traffic Regulation Order - Selborne Byway Open to All Traffic Number 68

Report of the Director of Recreation & Heritage

Contact: Richard Jackson, Ext 6891 Email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The following decisions are sought:

i) That a traffic regulation order be made to prohibit the use of public motorised vehicles from using BOAT 68 in the Parish of Selborne between Grid Reference SU 7426 3377 and SU 7547 3441 (Points A and B on the enclosed map), under Section 1 (1)(b)(c)(d) and (e), of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

ii) That the order be reviewed in so far as motorcycles are concerned in the two years from the date hereof.

2. Reason

2.1 To safeguard the route for the types of user more suited to its character and location.

3. Other options considered and rejected

3.1 Monitoring program and period of informal voluntary restraint.

4. Conflicts of interest declared by the decision maker or a member or officer consulted

4.1 Not applicable

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not Applicable

6. Reason for the matter being dealt with if urgent - Not applicable

Approved by: (signature) Date: (date of decision)

................................. ..............................

Councillor J Waddington

Hampshire County Council

Executive Member - Recreation & Heritage Item 1

18 February 2004

Traffic Regulation Order - Selborne Byway Open to All Traffic Number 68

Report of the Director of Recreation & Heritage

Contact: Richard Jackson, Ext 6891

ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984

1. Traffic regulation orders outside Greater London

(1) An order under this section (in this Act referred to as a "traffic regulation order") may, subject to Parts I to III of Schedule 9 to this Act and to sub-section (4) below, be made as respects any road outside Greater London where it appears to the authority making the order that it is expedient to make it -

(a) for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising, or

(b) for preventing damage to the road or to any building on or near the road, or

(c) for facilitating the passage on any road or any other road of any class of traffic (including pedestrians), or

(d) for preventing use of the road by vehicular traffic of a kind which, or its use by vehicular traffic in a manner which, is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the road or adjoining property, or

(e) (without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (d) above) for preserving the character of the road in a case where it is specially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot, or

(f) for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs.

2. What a traffic regulation order may provide

(1) The provision that may be made by a traffic regulation order is (subject to the following subsections and to sections 3 and 4 of this Act) any provision prohibiting, restricting or regulating the use of a road, or of any part of the width of a road, by vehicular traffic, or by vehicular traffic of any class specified in the order,-

(a) either generally or subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the Order or determined in a manner provided by it, and

(b) subject to such exceptions as may be so specified or determined, either at all times or at times, on days or during periods so specified

(3) The provision that may be made by a traffic regulation order also includes provision inhibiting, restricting or regulating the use of a road, or of any part of the width of the road, by, or by any specified class, of pedestrians -

(a) either generally or subject to exceptions specified in the order, and,

(b) either at all times, or at times, on days or during periods so specified.

1. Summary

On 20 November 2003 the Executive Member for Recreation and Heritage approved the advertisement of the County Council's intention to make a Traffic Regulation Order preventing the use of Selborne BOAT 68 by all public motorised vehicles. The proposal was advertised on 2 January 2004.

This report considers the objections to the proposal and recommends that an order be made prohibiting use of Selborne BOAT 68 by public motorised vehicular traffic.

2. Background

BOAT 68 in Selborne has recently undergone extensive surface repair works to consolidate the surface following recent damage caused by motorised vehicles. This damage was intensified due to the geological and soil conditions meaning that the route is not freely draining. This was also made worse by the closed canopy of surrounding vegetation. There have also been works to open up the canopy to allow more sunlight to reach the ground surface to aid in the drying out of the route. It is felt that continued vehicular use of this lane will cause yet more damage to the route and that the use may cause further damage to the historic surface.

In November 2003 the Executive Member for Recreation and Heritage approved the advertisement of the County Council's intention to make an order to exclude all public motorised vehicular traffic from BOAT 68.

The order is proposed on the following grounds, namely i) for preventing damage to the road, ii) for facilitating the passage on the road of any class of traffic, iii) for preventing the use of the road by vehicular traffic of a kind which, or its use by vehicular traffic in a manner which, is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the road or adjoining property and iv) (without prejudice to the generality of point iii above) for preserving the character of the road in a case where it is specially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot.

3. Objections to the Proposed Order

Thirteen objections to the proposed order were received within the 21-day period following advertisement. These are summarised as follows:

3.1 Southern Group Trail Riders Fellowship

Object to the closure of the BOAT to motorcycles for the flowing reasons: 'do not believe that the damage has been caused by motorcycles. Four-wheel drive vehicles, farm machinery and horses are the worst offenders on this occasion'.

3.2 David Tilbury

Objects to the closure of the BOAT to vehicular traffic. He states that some routes are denied maintenance for a considerable period and when in need of some maintenance a traffic regulation order is imposed. This neglect extends to the assertion of rights in some cases. Should the Order be reworded to include a time limit (to allow for repair and consolidation) and/or a weight limit then he could have no objection. The fact that the Order would preclude only motor vehicles is not logical when a horse or horse drawn vehicle a cyclist or even a walkers boot exerts more pressure on the ground than does a trail bike tyre.

3.3 Southern Centre ACU

Objects to the closure of the BOAT to motorcycle traffic. The route will sustain motorcycle traffic. Motorcycles are the least damaging of users. Preventing motorcycle use of this route will cause the overuse of neighbouring routes. They urge the Council to reconsider the proposed regulation and allow motorcycles. In its place an Order banning motorised four wheelers would suffice. It is a significant route and has been used for generations and its loss would be missed greatly.

3.4 British Driving Society

No objection to the proposal provided that if the proposals are granted full access is made for horse drawn vehicles and no physical obstructions put in place.

3.5 Sean Fosberry

Objects to the proposed TRO on Selborne BOAT 68. Mr Fosberry does not consider it appropriate to permanently restrict motorised vehicles from the route. From its western end for about 700 metres of the 1.2km route the going is mainly hard chalk and in good repair, more than capable of sustaining vehicular use. He doubts whether it can be shown that the deterioration of the lane will stop once 'recreational' motorised users are banned. The evidence on the ground does not support this as the lane and surrounding pasture is currently experiencing damage whilst the recreational user is excluded. Previously in many areas HCC have implemented TROs for '3 or more wheels' to great effect, considering the needs of all user groups whilst allowing sensitive lanes to recover. If it is not felt that the lane can withstand the weight of motorcycles using the route then he would expect HCC to extend the proposed TRO to include equestrian traffic. If a TRO is placed on the lane for any period he feels it should be reviewed regularly and concerned parties kept informed of the lanes condition and recovery.

3.6 Keith W Dobson

Objects to the closure of the BOAT to motorcycle traffic. 'It appears to me that since the authority has repaired the surface, the only vehicles to use the byway have been agricultural. The damage that is now evident must surely have been caused by them. The only way to stop this damage from continuing will be to prevent these vehicles from using it, which is probably not possible'.

3.7 Peter Charlton

Objects to the proposed TRO on BOAT 68. 'The recent repairs have been paid for by our taxes and therefore for us not to be able to use vehicles on it seems very unjust. Having looked at the photos before and after the lane was closed to public vehicles, it can be seen that in places the damage to the surface has increased considerably due to presumably agricultural use. This shows that 4x4 and motorcycles are not the only problem. The ruts (up to 70cm deep) would be extremely hard to create with a 4x4 due to ground clearance. Therefore again the tractors seem partly responsible for the damage caused'.

3.8 A J Lane

Objects to the proposal to permanently ban motorcycles from the trail at Selborne. Accepts that the trail does suffer damage particularly during the inclement weather primarily by heavy 4 wheeled vehicles. This would suggest that what is needed is a more focused ban during the winter months, not the permanent withdrawal of ancient rights.

3.9 David Allcock

Objects to the proposed order for the following reasons: i) closure will compress vehicular users onto other rights of way in the Selborne area, ii) the surface, if properly maintained, would enable sustainable use by, at the very least, motorcycles, iii) far from detracting from the character of the route, responsible motorised use is maintaining the purpose for which the route originally came into being.

3.10 Lee Mather

Objects to the proposed order for the flowing reasons: i) the route would not be damaged by the use of motorcycles as they are lightweight when compared to four wheeled drive vehicles and ii) horse riders also account for damage to soft ground due to the weight and the amount of use.

3.11 David Martin

Objects to the proposed order as a keen motorcyclist.

3.12 Patrick Wills

Objects to the proposed order for the flowing reasons: i) far too many BOATs and RUPPs are being closed to vehicular traffic and ii) it is rare to hear of footpaths and bridleways being closed so why should this BOAT be closed.

3.13 David Holness

Objects to the proposed order for the flowing reasons: i) the route is sustainable for motorised vehicles, ii) the maintenance work carried out has improved the surface to a condition well above what it was before the Temporary Traffic Regulation Order was imposed, iii) a significant contributory factor to the level of damage was the exceptional amount of rainfall during 2002. Although Selborne may be a SSSI this BOAT lies outside the National Trust areas of Selborne, iv) if HCC feel that the route cannot sustain 4 wheel drive vehicles it should modify the order to allow for motorcycles to use the route.

4. Comments on the Objections

4.1 A number of comments included in the letters of objection to the order are that the highway authority should not be using traffic regulation orders to avoid the maintenance of these lanes. The County Council seeks to impose a traffic regulation order as part of a programme of management that is intended to prevent further damage to the historic surface of this lane. This will not necessarily involve the improvement of the surface, so as to negate the risk of damage by motorised vehicles, but that is not a dereliction of duty.

4.2 There are 11 out of the 13 letters of objection which object from a motorcycle point of view. It is felt by the objectors that motorcycle access should continue to be permitted and a ban should be enforced against motorised vehicles with three or more wheels. It may be that the motorcycle is less damaging than motorised vehicles with three or more wheels but Officers feel that the use of motorcycles would be unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the route.

4.3 A number of objections stated that the closure of this lane would put added pressure onto neighbouring rights of way. As the lane is part of a larger network of routes users would still be able to access the remainder of the network as a suitable alternative route is available.

4.4 There are numerous concerns that the route is capable of withstanding motorcycle traffic and therefore the restriction should be to prohibit use by motorised vehicles with three or more wheels. As this is an unknown factor it is intended that the traffic regulation order should be re-assessed regularly in accordance with Hampshire County Council's traffic regulation policy.

4.5 A number of objections stated that there has been damage caused since the route has been subject to a temporary closure and that therefore the damage caused to the surface of the byway is not all caused by recreational motorised vehicles. Landowners do have access onto the route and the National Trust have access along the route to access their land. The damage stated in the letters of objection were caused by machinery that carried out the major surface repair on the byway within Dortons Wood.

4.6 The concerns raised by the British Driving Society are valid as the enforcement of the traffic regulation order to prohibit all public motorised vehicles while still allowing access for horse drawn vehicles may prove to be difficult. However, the fact that it may be difficult to restrict access should not be a factor in whether the traffic regulation order is put in place.

5. Conclusions

5.1 The objections from the vehicular user groups to the proposed order are noted, but for the reasons given above are not considered to be such as to prevent the making of the order.

5.2 The private rights of adjoining landowners and those who have a private right of usage should be maintained. This level of use and its effects will be monitored.

5.3 The law provides that the ability to use a highway does not mean that it is necessarily safe to do so, and that users must exercise their own judgement as to speed and suitability. Officers believe that care should be taken at all times and that use in some circumstances will be inadvisable.

RECOMMENDATION

That an order be made prohibiting public motorised vehicular traffic from using BOAT 68 in the Parish of Selborne on the grounds set out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 s1(1)(b)(c)(d) and (e).