Contact: Andrew Smith, Ext 6003 e-mail: [email protected]

Section 2 of the Act sets out what the powers can be used to do:

1. Summary

1.2 The County Council, as the Highway Authority for the area, has powers to make Traffic Regulation Orders to restrict or prohibit access by certain forms of traffic from public rights of way. These powers are set out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and are described above. The use of these powers has come under scrutiny in recent years, not least because of the controversy surrounding the use of motor vehicles on country paths. This proposed policy aims to clarify the Council's approach to the use of these powers. The statutory advisory Hampshire Countryside Access Forum has been involved in, and contributed to, the drafting of this policy and has agreed the proposals set out below. This draft policy is set out at Paragraph 3 and is submitted to the Recreation and Heritage Policy Review Committee to ask for their support and for approval by the Executive Member.

2. Background

2.1 Hampshire County Council does not currently have a policy document which specifically relates to Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs). There are currently 30 TROs in the county all of which, prior to being introduced, have been considered against the criteria set out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The majority of these prohibit use of motor vehicles. In recent years there has been greater pressure to use this power more frequently and this has highlighted the need to have as clear a policy as possible relating to the making and management of Traffic Regulation Orders. In September 2005 a small group of members of the Hampshire Countryside Access Forum met with HCC Officers to consider the scope of a policy document and to begin to put forward and discuss proposals.

2.2 The small group of Access Forum members met on January 25^th 2006. The group worked through and commented upon the draft of a proposed policy and made suggestions for other areas or measures that should be included. Where there was general support from the Working Group for changes these were made and incorporated into the proposed policy, which was discussed again at the meeting of the Forum on March 22^nd 2006. Minor alterations were agreed at that meeting and are incorporated in this report. The motor vehicle representative on the Forum has contributed to the process throughout.

3. Proposed Policy for the Management of Traffic on Hampshire's Public Rights of Way Network and the Use of Traffic Regulation Orders

3.1 · Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

The legislation which gives highway authorities the powers to make Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) is the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Section 1 of the Act sets out the powers and describes the circumstances or criteria which have to met for this power to be exercised.

3.2 Hampshire County Council's approach to the use of this power is to consider every individual case on its merits. It will consider whether a TRO is appropriate for a specific path rather than consider the implementation of TROs for an area. The policy and individual decisions taken should, wherever possible, be in accordance with the guidance set out in the revised version of `Making the Best of Byways' and recent Government Guidance document entitled `Regulating the Use of Motor Vehicles on Public Rights of Way and Off-Road"

3.3 If a previously unrecorded route is added to the Definitive Map as a route with public vehicular rights, or if the recorded status of a route is changed to show the existence of public vehicular rights, then the County Council will only consider the restriction of vehicles if there are specific local circumstances which warrant such action. However, where there is no evidence of significant use of the route by motor vehicles in the previous twenty years then the presumption will be that motor vehicular traffic should be prohibited.

3.4 Road Traffic Regulation Act Criteria: The criteria will be considered in relation to the circumstances which exist in each specific case.

3.5 Every Traffic Regulation Order will be reviewed by HCC officers at least once every three years to see if the circumstances which led to the making of the Order still apply. The conclusions of the review should be made publicly available.

3.6 The response to a problem or a potential problem should always be the least restrictive necessary. The Council will consider a series of other options before considering the making of a TRO. If a TRO is to be considered it should be the least restrictive necessary.

3.7 If a problem exists which is due to the use, or likely future use, of a route by certain types of traffic then the following options must be considered: -

_ Allowing traffic to continue to use the route, but undertaking closer monitoring of use and impact of use over a period (usually several months).

_ Assessing whether private use of the route is a contributory factor and if so liaising with those responsible to find a solution.

_ Undertaking remedial works to a standard which can support the expected level of public use of the route.

3.8 If the problem is deemed to be more severe, and the above measures have not worked or would not work, the following options will be considered:

_ The use of signs requesting particular classes of traffic to desist from use at times when such use would be harmful (e.g. after rain or over winter). In addition, asking known contacts within user groups to publicise the case and to ask that the route identified be avoided for a period of time, or at certain times of the year, depending upon the nature of the problem

_ If the problem is one deemed to be caused by public use of the route by motor vehicles, the Council can ask the organised groups to agree to promote a `Voluntary Restraint' (VR) by certain classes of vehicles and/or at certain times of the year. These VRs are accompanied by LARA (Land Access and Recreation Association) signs and an agreement that members of LARA and affiliated societies are asked to abide by the restraint being promoted.

_ If a VR is deemed to be insufficient, or has been tried but been unsuccessful, then the next consideration is the making of a Traffic Regulation Order. Again, this should be the least restrictive necessary. Consideration will be given to limiting the restriction to as short a period as is necessary and should only apply at certain times of year if appropriate. In particular, if there is an immediate risk, consideration should be given to the implementation of an `Experimental TRO' as described in the recent Government guidance. Although these can be imposed quickly they must then be subject to the same decision making process as non-experimental TROs and, in any event, the legislation does not allow for these to be in place for longer than 18 months.

3.9 Process for Making a Traffic Regulation Order.

3.10 If a proposal for a TRO is to be considered, the details of what is most appropriate may change before the TRO is actually made. Interested parties, including the owners or managers of the land, local councils and user groups should be informed of such changes and have the opportunity to comment. A summary of the responses and proposed action should be made available to all consultees. The same contacts will also be notified when a proposed TRO is to be considered by the Executive Member.

3.11 This flow chart is a simplified representation of the process:

No merit Record details & notify interest groups

Possible HCC Officer

Problem assesses case No TRO/Voluntary

Restraint

Merit Consult

user groups Continue to consult at each

stage as proposal for TRO is

clarified and then considered

by the Executive Member

3.12 Whatever the outcome, feedback will be provided to those consulted.

3.13 Provision of Information. An annual report will be produced and made publicly available which lists:

_ all the existing TROs in the county,

_ dates they commenced, the reasons why the TROs have been made and are still in place,

_ the traffic prohibited and at what times,

_ dates and conclusions of reviews undertaken,

_ details of remedial works which are planned.

This information will also be available on the County Council Countryside Service web pages.

3.14 Signage and Barriers. Unless enforcement or non-compliance difficulties arise, signs and barriers will be limited to those which are necessary to achieve the intended effect of the Order. A minimum in every case will be a permanent sign which explains clearly in words, with easily understood graphics, the traffic which is prohibited from using the route and at what times. If barriers are necessary every reasonable attempt will be made to physically allow access to the traffic which is not prohibited by the Order. This will include the use of the `Kent Carriage Gap' where the intention is to prohibit access by 4 wheeled vehicles but allow horse drawn carriages to continue to use the route. The Kent Carriage Gap is a series of low bollards which are placed suffucienlty close together to allow most carriages through but too close to allow access for most motor vehicles.

3.15 County Council officers will help encourage Hampshire Police to monitor adherence to all Traffic Regulation Orders across the county and to take appropriate enforcement action. In particular HCC officers will encourage local Police to take action against offenders where clear problems exist.

4. Legal Implications

4.1 The proposed policy is in accordance with the County Council's powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Contravention of a Traffic Regulation Order is an offence and the offender is liable to a fine. The authority is obliged to advertise proposed Orders in a local newspaper and on-site. This process must be repeated when the Order is confirmed.

5. Financial Implications

5.1 There are costs associated with the Order making process, in particular due to the requirement to advertise the Order in the local newspaper. There will be significant costs associated with the installation of physical structures and signage to ensure that the Orders are clearly indicated at each access point and that prohibited traffic is unable to take access. Due to the remote location of some of these access points policing the Orders will be very difficult and therefore physical restrictions preventing unlawful access may be necessary.

6. Impact Assessment

6.1 An unfortunate impact of physically preventing unlawful access by motorbikes is the erecting of barriers which also prevent lawful access by horse and cart. A possible solution is the issuing of keys to carriage drivers who may wish to use these routes although this still prevents access as of right and requires pre-arrangement. The local representatives of carriage drivers do not support this approach. It is important to minimise the number of situations where this problem arises and to work with the local carriage drivers to find a more acceptable solution.

7. Crime Prevention

7.1 The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allows the making of TROs for the purposes of `preserving the amenities of the area'.

8. Personnel Implications

8.1 There are no implications for personnel.

9. Conclusion

9.1 This issue has generated a large level of interest in recent years and the Government has recognised the need to legislate through the introduction of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which includes legislation to end the link between historic vehicular use of country paths and use by today's motor vehicles. The subject has been particularly high-profile in Hampshire and it has proven necessary for the County Council to have a very clear approach. This policy is intended to be fair and to respect the rights of all users but also to respect the county's countryside and the rights of the people who live in the countryside and those people who wish to enjoy quiet, safe recreation.

Recommendation

That the Policy Review Committee supports the proposed policy setting out the Council's approach to the management of traffic on public paths and the use of Traffic Regulation Orders and recommends to the Executive Member for Recreation and Heritage that the proposed policy be adopted.

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.

N.B the list excludes:

Published works

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

Title : None