Hampshire County Council

Executive Member - Recreation & Heritage Item 5

17 March 2005

Traffic Regulation Order - Hursley Unnumbered BOAT, Sparsholt BOAT No. 10 and No. 13, Kings Somborne BOAT No. 34, Crawley BOAT No. 1 and unnumbered BOAT.

Report of the Director of Recreation & Heritage

Contact Andrew Smith, Ext 6003 Email [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 This report seeks authority to advertise an intention to make a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) prohibiting the use of certain types of vehicle on parts of the Byways Open to All Traffic (BOAT) that run from a junction with Road U171 (Sarum Road) in the Parish of Hursley to Road B3049 (Stockbridge Road) in the Parish of Crawley. The route is shown on the accompanying plan.

2. Background

2.1 The subject route consists of a series of connecting byways which, until the recent acknowledgement of their status as ancient carriage roads, following the making of a Definitive Map Modification Order, were recorded on the definitive map in part as bridleways and in part as a Road Used as a Public Path (RUPP). Two further sections of the route were unrecorded. There has been little or no public vehicular use of the route in the recent past.

2.2 As a result of this change in designation, it has been necessary to look into the most appropriate way to manage the byways in order to maintain their existing rural character.

2.3 After proper consideration within the Countryside Service, a proposal was made regarding the most appropriate way to manage these routes. This proposal is set out at paragraph 3 below.

2.4 A consultation letter was sent to all of the statutory consultees on 9 December 2004 and other individuals or organisations who had expressed an interest. Responses to the proposals have also been received from 209 other individuals.

2.5 This report considers comments made in response of the consultation.

3. The Initial Proposal

3.1 Hursley unnumbered byway between points A and B on the attached plan (between GR SU 41921 29124 and 41710 29416)

3.1.1 This route leaves the Road U171 and follows the existing hollow way through yew trees to its junction with Sparsholt BOAT No.10 at the parish boundary.

3.1.2 It is felt that to open up this route to allow any class of user except for pedestrians would be extremely detrimental to the existing character of the route and would cause insurmountable damage to the route and its surroundings.

3.1.3 It is considered that an Order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA) restricting use by all classes of user except for pedestrians could properly be justified on the following grounds set out in Section 1(1) of the Act namely

(a) for avoiding of preventing danger to users of the route

(b) for preventing damage to the road

(d) for preventing use of the road which is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the road or adjoining property

(e) for preserving the character of the road in a case where it is specially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot

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

3.1.4 It should be possible for a permissive right for horse drawn vehicles to be granted for the use of Hursley Bridleway No.7 which runs immediately to the east of this route and has the same start and finish points.

3.2 Sparsholt Byway Open to All Traffic No.10 between points B and C on the attached plan (between GR SU 41710 29416 and 41767 31349).

3.2.1 This route begins at its junction with Hursley Bridleway No.7/Un-numbered Byway at the parish boundary and runs generally in a northerly direction following an existing forest track through West Wood. On exiting the West Wood the route follows a cross field path to join Sparsholt BOAT No.13.

3.2.2 It is felt that the use of motorised vehicles on this section of right of way would be detrimental to the byway's surface, (especially where the route exits the woodland and crosses onto agricultural land) and to the existing character of the route, and would damage the amenities of the area through which the route runs.

3.2.3 An Order under s1(1) RTRA 1984 restricting use by all public motorised vehicles could properly be justified on the following grounds namely:

(b) for preventing damage to the road

(d) for preventing use of the road which is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the road or adjoining property

(e) for preserving the character of the road in a case where it is specially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot

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

3.3 Sparsholt BOAT No.13 between points C and D on the attached plan (between GR SU 41767 31349 and 41263 31681).

3.3.1 This route runs from its junction with Unclassified County Road U171/Sparsholt BOAT No.10 in a westerly direction along an existing track to its junction with Unclassified County Road U91/Kings Somborne BOAT No.34.

3.3.2 It is felt that no traffic management measures need to be taken on this route as the route's surface and environs are of a standard high enough to withstand a moderate amount of vehicular traffic.

3.4 Kings Somborne BOAT No.34 between the points D and E on the attached plan (between GR SU 41263 31681 and 4109033081).

3.4.1 This route runs from its junction with Sparsholt BOAT No.13 generally in a northerly direction along a narrow (widening at its northern end) bare earth track to its junction with Road C7 (Winchester Road).

3.4.2 Although the width in the northern part of the route is defined as 40 feet the width of the southern part of the route has not been legally defined and in practice is considerably narrower.

3.4.3 Due to the nature of the surface, lack of available width and the presence of mature hedgerows and existing field banks it is felt that this route is not suitable for use by motorised vehicles. It is felt that conflicts could arise due to the lack of useable width and passing places.

3.4.4 An Order under s1(1) RTRA 1984 restricting use by all public motorised vehicles could properly be justified on the following grounds namely:

(b) for preventing damage to the road

(d) for preventing use of the road which is unsuitable having regard to the existing character of the road or adjoining property

(e) for preserving the character of the road in a case where it is specially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot

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

3.5 Crawley BOAT No.1 between points E, F and G on the attached plan (between GR SU 41090 33081 and 41427 33844).

3.5.1 This route runs from Road C7 (Winchester Road) generally in a northerly direction along a partly concrete, partly gravelled farm track to point F on the plan and then north easterly direction along same farm track to its junction with Road B3049 (Stockbridge Road).

3.5.2 No restriction should be placed on this section of the route at present but the situation should be monitored to assess the impact of use on the route. Particular regard will be paid to the safety of users in the vicinity of the farm buildings and also where users emerge on to the road network.

3.6 Crawley unnumbered byway between points F and H on the attached plan (between GR SU 41153 33524 and 41131 34014).

3.6.1 This route runs from its junction with Crawley BOAT No.1 (at point F on the plan) and runs in a northerly direction along field headland and through woodland to its junction with Road B3049 (Stockbridge Road).

3.6.2 This route was set out by an enclosure award of 1794. Subsequent map evidence shows that there has been no physical impediment preventing use of the route but that use has declined to a point where it is currently negligible.

3.6.3 Making the route available will not greatly enhance the local network which is well served by Crawley Byway No.1.

3.6.4 It is proposed that an application be made to extinguish this route under s.116 of the Highways Act 1980 on the grounds that it is not needed for public use.

4. Comments Received regarding the Proposed Order

4.1 The consultation was initially sent to the following consultees whose responses are summarised below.

4.2 Cllr Mrs A E Bailey

4.2.1 Writes in support of the proposal between points A-B and B-G but would like to see the section between F-H preserved for use by walkers and cyclists.

4.3 Cllr M J Woodhall

4.3.1 Writes to ask that the TRO be extended to the full length of the route.

4.4 Hursley Parish Council

4.4.1 Writes in support of the proposed restriction to only permit pedestrian access to the section between points A and B as the route is currently unused and anything other than the minimum opening up necessary for use by pedestrians would be extremely damaging.

4.5 Sparsholt Parish Council

4.5.1 Writes in support of the proposal.

4.6 Kings Somborne Parish Council

4.6.1 Write in support of the proposal but would like all vehicles prohibited from using the section of route between points E and G as to allow motorised vehicles to use this section would invite road traffic accidents and a fatality would surely result.

4.7 Crawley Parish Council

4.7.1 Welcome the proposals but would like the section between points E and G to be included in the restriction. The Parish council feel that the whole scheme would be stronger if it is seen from the outset as a comprehensive scheme for all the affected routes. The Parish also feel that the criteria for which the restrictions proposed on other sections of the route would be equally applicable on this section.

4.8 Countryside Service Rights of Way Area Officer - Central

4.8.1 Gives full support to the proposals

4.9 British Horse Society - Mrs B King (County Access and Bridleways Officer)

4.9.1 Objects to the closure of the route between points A and B as point (e) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 states that it is 'particularly suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot'. If the route is suitable, then riders should have the right to use it, as obviously intended by the confirmation of the Order by the Secretary of State.

4.9.2 The British Horse Society had no comments to make regarding the sections between B-C, C-D, D-E or E-G.

4.9.3 The British Horse Society objects to the proposed extinguishment of the section of byway between points F and H as this would create a road hazard unnecessarily as users would have to turn left onto the B3049 at point G to access quiet roads in the area.

4.10 British Horse Society - Mr A Fry (Assistant Access and Bridleways Officer)

4.10.1 Writes to:

i) object to the proposal to close the unnumbered byway between points A and B as the route is desirable for use by horse drawn vehicles. Mr Fry states that to grant a permissive right for horse drawn vehicles to use Bridleway No. 7 is not certain and permissive access can always be withdrawn or restricted by the landowner and also cannot be shown on the definitive map effectively making the route not available to non local users who have no means of knowing it exists.

ii) object to the proposal to extinguish the section between points F and H on the grounds of safety of horse riders and users of horse drawn vehicles. Mr Fry states that by forcing users to go via point G they then have to use a fast section of the B3049 between points G and H, followed by a right turn at point H to access the road opposite.

4.10.2 Mr Fry also states that

i) given that part of the route between points B and C is a reasonably well made forestry track a modest amount of work on the cross field section would make this route available for motorcycles whilst agreeing that four wheeled vehicles should not use this route unless major surface improvements are made.

4.10.3 ii) the lack of width at the southern end of the route between points D and E makes this route unsuitable for four wheeled vehicles but this does not really justify a restriction on motor cycles.

4.11 The Ramblers' Association

4.11.1 Writes, in general, to support the proposals. However it strongly disagrees with the proposal to extinguish the byway between points F and H as the new link would be a useful addition to the network to avoid the need to walk along the busy B3049 to link with the minor road to Leckford Hut. It is exactly the sort of new link that should be added as part of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan.

4.12 The Open Spaces Society

4.12.1 Writes to comment on the section between point F and H in the Parish of Crawley. The Open Spaces Society feels that the route would definitely be used by walkers and possibly horse riders, if it were to appear on the definitive map. The route also links directly with the minor road opposite which has an attractive, wooded character and very little motor traffic. It states that the sight lines are good at point H and by establishing the route users would have the option to avoid the hard and partly concreted alternative route (F-G).

4.13 Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC)

4.13.1 States that for the section between points A and B a TRO should be limited to prohibiting use by motor vehicles and thereby allow use by walkers, equestrians, horse drawn vehicles and cyclists.

4.13.2 The CTC writes to object to the proposed extinguishment of the section between points F and H as it would provide a useful link for cyclists (and walkers and riders) allowing them to access the minor road to the Leckford Hut avoiding the B3049 between points G and H.

4.14 LARA - David Tilbury

4.14.1 Writes to object to the proposal to prohibit motorised vehicles from using the section between points A and B on the grounds that it is not justified. Mr Tilbury states that members of the Trail Riders Fellowship have used the route parallel to the route between A and B for a considerable time without any conflicts arising between other users or any visible surface damage. Mr Tilbury states that if users had a choice of two routes, the use on either route will be less than the currently used route.

4.14.2 Mr Tilbury objects to the proposal to prohibit use of the section between points B and C by motorised vehicles as the southern half of the route has a hard surface that is regularly used by forestry vehicles with no great detriment.

4.14.3 Mr Tilbury agrees with the proposal not to restrict use between points C to D.

4.14.4 Mr Tilbury objects to the proposal to prohibit use by motorised vehicles between points D and E on the grounds that it has been used for years (personally for 30 years) by motorcycles and cars and there is no evidence of surface damage.

4.14.5 Mr Tilbury agrees with the proposal not to restrict use between points F-G.

4.14.6 Mr Tilbury states that the section between points F and H should remain as a BOAT as it forms a direct crossing to a quiet land for all users.

4.15 Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE)

4.15.1 Writes to support the proposal to prohibit use of all users expect for pedestrians to use the section between points A and B. The CPRE raises the issue of whether if permissive access were granted to allow horse drawn vehicles to use Hursley Bridleway No. 7, would it be used by them due to the gradient and the popularity of this park with the general public for other activities such as the flying of kites and organised runs.

4.15.2 CPRE supports the proposal to prohibit the use of motorised vehicles from using the section between B and C.

4.15.3 CPRE also supports the proposal not to place any form of restriction on the section between points C and D.

4.15.4 CPRE considers that it is very necessary to protect the surface of the section between points D and E and therefore support the proposal to prohibit use of this section by motorised vehicles.

4.15.5 CPRE would like the TRO to be extended to restrict use by motorised vehicles to the section between E and G. They state that the opening up of this section to motorised vehicles could become dangerous as it could be used as a short cut which would be used by drivers, including commuters, at times when the roads are busy. The CPRE feels that the surface could easily and rapidly become damaged if public motorised vehicles were allowed to use this section along with the deterioration of the surrounding habitats. Another concern raised by the CPRE is one of security. It feels that if the gates are removed across the track to allow all vehicles to be able to use the route, farm security could be jeopardised.

4.15.6 CPRE supports the proposal to extinguish the section between points F and H as the route has not been used for 'centuries' and the amount of damage to the trees and shrubs that form important landscape features that would be involved in opening up this route would be extremely detrimental.

4.16 The Forestry Commission

4.16.1 Writes to fully support the proposal to prohibit the use of all public motorised vehicles from using the section between points B and C.

4.17 Mr A F Monk

4.17.1 Writes in support of the proposal that a TRO should be placed on the section between points A and B. Mr Monk also supports the proposals relating to the prohibition of motorised vehicles from using the sections between points B to C, C to D and D to E.

4.17.2 Mr Monk states that not to include the section between points E and G like the other sections where the TRO is proposed is illogical and inconsistent. The reasoning given for the proposals of these previous sections are equally applicable for this section. Mr Monk raises the issue regarding the potential problems with safety where the route joins with the Road B3049. As the landowner, Mr Monk states that he has a need for the gates to remain across the route to offer some protection to his land.

4.17.3 Mr Monk supports the proposal to extinguish the section between points F and H.

4.18 Mr Meitner

4.18.1 Mr Meitner, owner of part of the route and land adjoining it writes in support of the proposals.

4.19 Hampshire Constabulary

4.19.1 Writes specifically regarding the section between points E and G, preferring this section to be subject to a TRO prohibiting public motorised traffic to avoid danger to persons engaged in agriculture or using the farm buildings along the route, to avoid danger to traffic at points G and E because the track is likely to be used as a short cut to and from NTL, avoiding the Rack & Manger P.H. junction and to prevent damage to the road surface.

5. Comments on the proposals from the wider general public

5.1 In total, 171 letters have been received from members of the public offering their support for the proposal as described above.

5.2 In addition, there have been 38 letters from members of the public who request that the section between points E and G be subject to a TRO prohibiting all public motorised vehicles from using this section.

5.3 There has been one objection to the imposition of a Traffic Regulation Order

in addition to those made by the user groups described above.

6. Comments on the Objections

6.1 Hursley unnumbered byway between points A and B on the attached plan (between GR SU 41921 29124 and 41710 29416)

6.1.1 The objections to this section being restricted to pedestrian access are noted. However, as this route is within a yew tree hollow way it is felt that to open it up to facilitate passage by any class of user except for pedestrians would have a detrimental impact upon this feature in terms of its landscape and ecological character. However, in light of the comments received, particularly from carriage drivers, and following a site inspection made by the Executive Member and officers on March 3^rd 2005, the countryside manager for the area has been requested to give his view on the use of this route by different types of `traffic'. The Countryside Service's Area Team Leader will therefore provide a statement of his view on the possible environmental impact of opening up this route. This statement will be available for the Executive Member to consider at his Decision Day Meeting.

6.2 Sparsholt Byway Open to All Traffic No.10 between points B and C on the attached plan (between GR SU 41710 29416 and 41767 31349).

6.2.1 The objections received to this section being subject to a TRO prohibiting use by public motorised vehicles are noted but do not provide an answer to the fact that use by motor vehicles in this situation would be detrimental to the character of the area which is ideally suited to recreational use by walkers, riders and cyclists. As the section between points A and B would not be available to motorised vehicles, it is also felt that to create a 'dead end' route would cause problems for the management of the surrounding land, as users would have to find turning spaces when they arrived at point B (from point C).

6.3 Kings Somborne BOAT No.34 between the points D and E on the attached plan (between GR SU 41263 31681 and 4109033081).

6.3.1 As a result of the consultation responses regarding this section it is felt that the proposed TRO should be amended to allow use of this route by motorcycles but to prohibit use by vehicles that have three or more wheels because of the limited width that is available. Again, an inspection of this route was made by the Executive Member and officers on March 3^rd 2005, as a result of which the recommendation has been altered further to include a review of the use of this route by motorcycles after the first 12 months of the implementation of a TRO prohibiting vehicles with three or more wheels. A further report would therefore be produced for the Executive Member to consider which considers the impact that motorcycles have had and recommending whether the TRO should be extended to prohibit their use.

6.4 Crawley BOAT No.1 between points E, F and G on the attached plan (between GR SU 41090 33081 and 41427 33844).

6.4.1 As a result of the consultation responses regarding this section, particularly the response of Hampshire Constabulary, it is felt that there should be a TRO placed on this route restricting use by all public motorised vehicles, on the grounds of safety, there being concerns about the visibility and ease of exit at the junction with the B3049.

6.5 Crawley unnumbered byway between points F and H on the attached plan (between GR SU 41153 33524 and 41131 34014).

6.5.1 As a result of the consultation responses regarding this section, which showed that there was a desire by users to have a safe link to the quiet road U76 towards the Leckford Hut, it is felt that vehicular rights should be extinguished but bridleway rights should be retained.

7. Conclusions

7.1 This issue generated a large level of interest and the original proposal has been amended having taken into account the views expressed. The advertising of the intention to make a Traffic Regulation Order is the first stage in the process. Once responses have been received to the formal advert a further report will be taken to the Executive Member with a recommendation for making an order (if this remains appropriate) which takes into account those responses received.

Recommendations

1. That approval be given to the advertisement of the intention to make an Order to give effect to the following traffic management measures:

2. Hursley unnumbered byway between points A and B on the attached plan (between GR SU 41921 29124 and 41710 29416)

2a (Subject to the advice received from the countryside manager for the area), an order prohibiting use by all class of user except for pedestrians on the grounds set out in Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 s.1(1)(a)(b)(d)(e)(f)

3. Sparsholt Byway Open to All Traffic No.10 between points B and C on the attached plan (between GR SU 41710 29416 and 41767 31349).

3a An order prohibiting use by all public motorised vehicles on the grounds set out in Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 s.1(1)(b)(d)(e)(f)

4. Kings Somborne BOAT No.34 between the points D and E on the attached plan (between GR SU 41263 31681 and 4109033081).

4a An order prohibiting use by all public motorised vehicles with three or more wheels on the grounds set out in Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 s.1(1)(b)(d)(e)(f) to be reviewed by the Executive Member after the first 12 months of implementation to consider the impact of motorcycle use.

5. Crawley BOAT No.1 between points E, F and G on the attached plan (between GR SU 41090 33081 and 41427 33844).

5a An order prohibiting use by all public motorised vehicles on the grounds set out in Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 s.1(1)(a)(b)(d)(e)(f)

5b That a report be taken to Regulatory Committee recommending that an application be made under s.116 Highways Act 1980 for an order extinguishing vehicular rights (subject to the retention of Bridleway rights) over Crawley unnumbered byway between points F and H on the attached plan (between GR SU 41153 33524 and 41131 34014).]

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

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

Title : None

N.B the list excludes:

1. Published works

Documents that disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act