Hampshire County Council

Executive Member - Recreation & Heritage Item 10

16 September 2004

Traffic Regulation Order - Crawley Bridleway Number 7 and Littleton and Harestock Bridleway Number 2

Report of the Director of Recreation & Heritage

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

1. Summary

1.1 The following decision is sought:

That a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) be made to prohibit the use of public motorised vehicles from using Bridleway 7 in the Parish of Crawley (between GR SU 4394 3501 at its junction with New Barn Lane (U172) to its junction with Littleton and Harestock Bridleway 2 at the parish boundary GR SU 4476 3415) and Littleton and Harestock Bridleway 2 (from its junction with Crawley Bridleway 7 at the parish boundary at GR SU 4476 3415 to its junction with Dirty Lane (C223) at GR SU 4515 3345). The proposed order is to be made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Sections 1(1)(b) for preventing damage to the road or to any building on or near the road and s.1(1)(f) for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs.

2. Reason

To safeguard the route for the types of user more suited to its character and location and to support Aim 2 (Stewardship of the Environment) of the Corporate Strategy.

3. Other options considered and rejected

Allowing motorcycle access.

4. Conflicts of interest declared by the decision maker or other Executive Member consulted

None.

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 10

16 September 2004

Traffic Regulation Order - Crawley Bridleway Number 7 and Littleton and

Harestock Bridleway Number 2

Report of the Director of Recreation & Heritage

1. Summary

1.1 This report seeks authority to make a Traffic Regulation Order prohibiting the use of all public motorised vehicles from using a length of highway known as Crawley Bridleway 7 and Littleton and Harestock Bridleway 2.

2. Background

2.1 On 18 July 2002 the Executive Member for Recreation and Heritage approved the advertisement of the County Council's intention to make a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) preventing the use of Crawley Bridleway 7 and Littleton and Harestock Bridleway 2 by all public motorised vehicles. The proposal was advertised on 11 October 2002.

2.2 The two routes are currently recorded as bridleways and are subject to an order to have them recorded as Byways Open to All Traffic. The order is being considered at a Public Inquiry which took place on 24 August 2004 and which has been adjourned until 29 September 2004. It was intended that the Traffic Regulation Order should be made if the Byway order was confirmed.

2.3 However, Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 2489 - The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales) Regulations 1996 states that 'no order shall be made after the expiration of the period of two years beginning with the date on which a notice of proposals relating to the order is first published. As the order was advertised on 11 October 2002, the order must be made by 10 October 2004, or Hampshire County Council's intention to make an order would have to be re-advertised.

2.4 This report seeks authority to make the order prior to the outcome of the Public Inquiry being known to avoid the need to re-advertise the Council's intention to make an order and thus the additional cost involved in doing so.

2.5 This report considers the comments made in response to the earlier advertisement and recommends that an order be made prohibiting use of Crawley Bridleway 7 and Littleton and Harestock Bridleway 2 by motorised vehicles.

2.6 The order is proposed on the following grounds, set out in Section 1(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, namely grounds (b) for preventing damage to the road, and (f) for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs.

3. Comments received regarding the Proposed Order

3.1 Seven letters regarding the proposed order were received within the 21-day period following advertisement. These are summarised as follows:

3.2 Russell McDermid

Writes to objects to the proposal. Mr McDermid states that he is aware that there are concerns about the surface damage caused by motor vehicles but continues to state that motorcycles cause little damage to these old roads as they have greater manoeuvrability than 4-wheeled vehicles. Mr McDermid therefore requests that if a TRO is to be put in place, it allows 2 wheeled vehicles to use the route. Mr McDermid fails to see how a TRO will help matters as any illegal users will merely ignore such a restriction as those who are the very same people who ride unregistered machines and speed away at the slightest chance. It is the view of Mr McDermid that a TRO only really curtails the use by responsible recreational riders, and does nothing to address the problem of illegal use by others on unregistered machines.

3.3 David Tilbury - Land Access and Recreation Association (LARA)

Objects to the closure of the BOAT and states that the route has long been used by members of the Trail Riders Fellowship (the TRF being a LARA member) on the basis of historical rights known to exist via their research. Mr Tilbury makes the point that LARA members with a 4x4 interest have accepted that the route is not suitable for their use due to the current width of the central section of the route but stresses that individual users may hold different views. Mr Tilbury states that "the view that I, as the local LARA respondent, took from the last meeting on this topic was that there would be no objection to the usually worded order that excludes vehicles with three or more wheels due to: a) existing use, b) existing width and c) no evidence of need for such an order". Mr Tilbury continues by stating that "current use is not adversely affecting the surface or the environs. As such the order does not address an existing problem but legitimises illegal obstruction of the route - and by inference encourages the illegal obstruction of other public rights of way".

3.4 Brian Middleton

Writes in support of the proposal and states that it is sensible as the route has been designated as a 'Recommended Mountain Bike Route' and is way-marked along its length as such and is shown on OS Explorer Map number 132 as a 'Selected Off-road Cycle Route' therefore this justifies the implementation of a TRO. Mr Middleton and others appreciate this safe route which is entirely free from motor vehicles and no conflicts arise between cyclists, horse riders and walkers. Mr Middleton states that "local cyclists use proposed BOAT 2/BOAT 7 to reach other Hampshire County Council designated cycle routes to the north of Winchester. The TRO supports Hampshire County Council's admirable policy of providing safe way-marked routes for those who enjoy the countryside".

3.5 Littleton and Harestock Parish Council

Give support to the TRO proposal. They state that the proposal will ensure that walkers, equestrian users and cyclists from the parish can gain safe access to the countryside and continue to enjoy this beautiful downland route. The Parish Council also see that the proposal is consistent with Hampshire County Council's designation of this important bridleway as a path safe and suitable for pedal cyclists.

3.6 Mrs Beverly Hayes

Writes to support the TRO proposal. Mrs Hayes is a regular user of the routes in question on horseback and feels that it would be extremely dangerous for all who use the track on foot, cycle or horseback if vehicles were permitted to use the routes.

3.7 Mrs Anne Woodford

Writes to strongly support the proposal. Mrs Woodford states that the whole path is important to many users for its peaceful isolation from the disturbance and pollution of vehicles, and therefore can be enjoyed by those who wish to gain pleasure from the countryside and the wildlife - both flora and fauna.

3.8 Hampshire Constabulary

Have no objection to this proposal.

4. Comments on the Objections

4.1 Out of the seven letters received relating to this proposal, only two were letters of objection.

4.2 The letter from Mr McDermid addresses the issue of damage caused by motorcycles, and states that it is less than that caused by 4 wheeled vehicles. It may be that motorcycles do cause less damage than 4 wheeled vehicles but Officers feel that the use of any motorised vehicles would be likely to cause damage to parts of the route. The type of surfacing of the route varies considerably. Littleton and Harestock Bridleway 2 would be most prone to damage by motorised vehicles as its surface is made up of bare earth and grass. As a result of this it is likely that this section would be particularly vulnerable to increased amounts vehicular traffic. To restrict use of certain sections of the route and allow vehicular access to others would be impracticable.

4.3 The letter from Mr McDermid also addresses the use of the route by 'unregistered users'. This is something that cannot be taken into account when deciding whether or not a TRO should be placed on a route.

4.4 Mr Tilbury states that "current use is not adversely affecting the surface or the environs". As the routes are currently designated as bridleways current use is minimal. It is felt that this use would increase if the routes were to be recorded as byways open to all traffic therefore putting more pressure on these un-surfaced routes, both in terms of damage to the surface, and to the immediate environment.

4.5 Officers have considered excluding motorcycles from the scope of the proposed order, but consider that to allow use by any public motorised vehicles would detract from the tranquillity, natural environment and general rural feel of this recreational route which constitute the amenities which the order is designed to protect.

5. Conclusions

5.1 The objections received 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.

Recommendation

That an order be made prohibiting public motorised vehicular traffic from using Bridleway 7 in the Parish of Crawley and Bridleway 2 in the Parish of Littleton and Harestock on the grounds set out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 s1(1)(b) and (f).

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - Background Documents

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

1. Published works

2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the act.

Title Location