|
|
David and Goliath A synopsis of how the NERC Act came about. By Degsy |
|
|
Copied here with the permission of the oldgit ;-) |
||
One of the most difficult things for people to agree upon is an issue about which they have a common claim or interest, but from diametrically opposed viewpoints. Two dogs - one bone. Example: One common interest most people have is the countryside, and their enjoyment of it. The latter part of that sentence is the root cause of all conflict in the countryside. Each individual will have a preconceived idea of what he or she sees as 'enjoyment'. The archetypal picture of the countryside is portrayed on teapot, coasters, wall paintings & greetings cards. We wish to capture its presence in perpetuity and we would wish a favourable view from the window as enduring. To go out and enjoy the real thing may happen to mean an outing devoid of the regular cut and thrust of commuter traffic. If taken on foot, the sound of an approaching vehicle will immediately raise the hackles. As we are all aware of the proliferation of traffic on our road network, when we seek escape from it and it follows us through the woods and across the downs - we feel it ought not to be allowed, it intrudes into our perfect space, it infringes on our senses, detracts from our enjoyment. The countryside has become sacrosanct, we feel the need to protect it. We build National Parks around areas of natural beauty, restrict access by vehicle, and encourage walking - it's healthy - and natural, a great pleasure for many. If one has a desire to ride on two wheels, be they by leg power or engine, there comes the challenge of balance and control. Apart from the fact the device gets you further than just two legs, there is considerable skill required in maintaining balance, reading the path ahead to take the route of least resistance for continued movement, and great accomplishment at having traversed a piece of track with obstacles of gradient, stone or wet chalk. It can be every bit as exhilerating and strenuous as a stiff climb in the Peaks on foot, and it might only be a five mile ride. Such experiences are often sought after by those who otherwise might spend their time behind a desk, in a factory, driving a bus, or being a housewife. These people are escaping the drudgery norm and enjoying the countryside. The experience keeps them fit, takes them to beautiful places and gives great pleasure. Their marks of passing are often erased by the next rainfall, or season. Goliath sees David. When I worked on a farm in Dorset, we considered our fields to be ours. The gates into those fields ours, and the entrances to those gateways ours. We knew every one, and looked to their status whenever we passed by. On an occasion when some people had stopped their car in the entrance way to a closed gate, we felt affronted. Who are they? What are they doing? What are they up to? We kept a sharp eye on them for quite a while - they were on OUR patch. They might be up to no good. As was, and is so often the case, they weren't up to anything at all - other than taking a break with a flask of tea and sandwiches. But because on occasion some left litter and open gates - we were very wary - we did not want them there. Better they not be there at all, than even occasionally - regardless of their behaviour. This is a common attitude amongst deep country folk. The desire is to maintain the tranquility and security of 'your patch'. This infiltration into the countryside by all and sundry who claim it to be theirs for the taking of their pleasure goes against the grain of those who work it, and those who own large tracts of it. In the case of the latter contingent, any nearby public right of way by foot or otherwise increases the need for diligence for the sake of security of stock, crop, and possible damage by tresspass. Better there were no public right of way, than any at all. If it carries vehicular status, then the thought that it could be open to use and abuse by hoards of noisy motorbikes, and convoys of mud churning 4x4's from some national 'Green Lane' club, calls for action. From the Countryside Landowners point of view, this latter mechanical intrusion is dynamite, and needs to be addressed so as to ensure the continued stability of wildlife, condition of the ground, a tranquil status quo, and the positive financial status of their investment. None of the above has taken in the historic value of Byways, Bridleways and Footpaths, though their interest and value are great. No, the issue is about access - how much, by whom, by what means - and why! Clearly the aforegiven approaches to pleasure fall into two distinct divisions. Those who would have no motor vehicle access to unsurfaced Public Right of Way, in which we can place those who choose to walk, with those who own land - and those who would continue to access by vehicle, the old roads for the sake of continuity of historic use - not only for the pleasure they give, but the certain fact that some usage actually benefits the lanes in question. And that repeated claims of damage, take no account of the lack of it, nor of the state of such roads when horse and cart was king - virtual quagmires for much of every year. Many walkers prefer to use lanes which carry a vehicular status, because there are in general fewer obstacles to impede progress - even though many may not be aware of that vehicular status. Footpaths on average have four times as many obstacles encountered per mile travelled. We have also to look at the amount of mileage available to the different types of user to better understand the points of view of different users and their supportive groups. The walker has 100% of unsurfaced Public Rights of Way available to them. All footpaths, all bridleways, and all byways - without restriction. They also have the Right to Roam as decreed by the CRoW Act 2000. They are represented by the The Ramblers Association, a large body, with strong lobbying facilities, and fully paid campaign staff with legal back up. Equestrians have 17% of PRoW, those being Bridleways and Byways. Few would object to meeting horses on a path, most feel their sight - and even smell, is part of our countryside 'heritage'. Though often at pains not to step in that which they leave behind. Motor Powered Vehicle users, if we count Roads Used as Public Paths AND Byways, have had access to 5%. As the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill has gained Royal Assent, this figure will be reduced to 1.8% upon commencement. In practice it will be less than that through Traffic Regulation Orders, and isolation of some available Byways through access to them being by the new classification of Restricted Byway. TRO's alone will account for as much as 20% of that 1.8% and will be off limits for MPV's leaving an estimated 1.4%. Various organisations meet their interests, TRF, GLASS, LARA, CRAG & the BBT are some of the main ones. There are few paid staff, and many volunteers attend working days throughout the year, maintaining lanes for the benefit of all users. Many such lanes can be seen here: Those organisations geared to support the walker are rejoicing in an unprecedented victory over the motor vehicle. The RA hold a file on problems encountered on RoW which can be read here: The equestrian world is holding it's breath as they see the sweeping restrictions on one type of user, may next be directed at themselves. As gun restriction has all but eliminated the pistol and rifle clubs, and hunting is under threat - any kind of outdoor pursuit may be open to scrutiny, and possible legislation - fishing, canoeing, hang gliding, flying model aircraft. The numbers of accidents occuring between horses and pedestrians are not inconsiderable, people fall from horses and are killed. The British Horse Society's records estimate that there are approximately eight car/horse accidents on the road each day, and over 3,000 road accidents involving horses reported every year with 1 in five accidents so bad, the animal has to be put down at the scene. Fishing can leave wildlife harmed, traumatised or dead. People drown in rivers and canals. A few have been killed by model aircraft, and hang gliding has it fatal casualties. Whereas accidents between MPV and pedestrians on unsurfaced public rights of way have been none over the previous forty year period. (Though one rider died recently having suffered a trauma, apparently not related to his riding). And as we know, hill walking suffers it's injured, lost and frozen daily. Live in the Spey Valley in Inverness-shire and you will hear the rescue helicopter four days out of seven. In the Cairngorm National Park, concern is high about the numbers of casual visitors to the hill, such that those arriving at the Ptarmigan Retaurant by the Funicular, are prevented from exiting onto the hill due to the problems of erosion, and of litter. The latter attracts carrion from the lower levels, who then proceed to prey on the indigenous species of small birdlife at the higher level, reducing their numbers. Where tourists tread - there's trouble ahead. Even Everest is not 'clean'. The next factor to consider is the number of users of each type of PRoW.
Government statistics give a figure of 7 million people walking in the countryside for pleasure every weekend. Throughout the UK 77% of adults, out of 38million, say they walk for pleasure at least once a month. Well, I must admit to not knowing the equestrian figures, but I hardly think they would amount to one hundred thousand every weekend. That's a generous estimate based upon a BHS membership of 100,000 - and not all horse owners are members. Nor do all members own horses, and some own more than one, though obviously not able to ride two at a time (circus's excepted). (Interestingly, despite the membership numbers their AGM in 2004 attracted 36 members). If all members rode at the weekends, there would be 2,272 riders in each of 44 counties of England and Wales. (Compare that with the average number who climb Snowdon at the weekend, above). For Motor Powered Vehicles driven along Byways there is an estimated average daily flow of 4.2 motor vehicles throughout the year across all byways open to all traffic in England. This implies that, in total, motor vehicles travel in the order of 11,000miles each day on the 2,600miles of Byways Open to All Traffic in England. These figures come from the Faber Maunsell report commissioned by DEFRA. If we take the combined membership of GLASS 1,900, and the TRF est. 5,000, making 6,900, there could be 157 vehicles per county. Give these (not 'in depth') figures some credence, and it does appear that an imbalance of countryside access is taking place. Lets try and get a little perspective on the numbers of people enjoying their outdoor pursuits on PRoW by the three main means - on foot, on horseback, and using motor powered vehicles. Walkers per County 160,000 average available - 19.4 miles each. If you were Chancellor of the Exchequer and seeking to tax on mobility, which group would you target? Mind - these are figures using estimated figures of memberships only, and assumes every available mile of RoW 'is' available to each user type. The numbers of user type per County does give an indication to the proportion of one against the others. Should Goliath tread on David? It appears that the larger parties of users are against access to the lesser parties, despite having the lions share of access. Why should this be? The key lay in power. Not that of the individuals - no matter how many they number - but the few with influence and power, and power is finance. There may well be common ground on which many users can find space to share their interests. But the balance of probabilities will weigh in favour of the non mechanicalised countryside user. When power and governmental influence are tapped into, logic and reason are the first casualties. (It may be of interest that members of the Country Landowners & Business Association, of which there are 49,000 members, own 5m hectares - 19,305 sq. miles in old money - of land. Of whom 60% own less than 16 acres each.) A true example from real life: A parish Councillor is approached by some parishoners who are upset by some bikes being ridden in the woods, or on some waste ground and disturbing their peace. The Councillor approaches their MP who is a member of the executive committee of a walking association. A local land owner is concerned that numbers of 4x4 vehicles are cutting up some soft ground on some heathland, and complains to a colleague, who happens to know a Minister in a government department whose effective presence would be increased if their department, and themselves, were active in pursuing the policies of government in general as outlined by the Prime Minister in caring for our National Heritage and the environment in general, and mindful of the need to reduce CO2 emmissions. The plan is hatched. Various feelers are put out Nationwide to local authorities, transport advisors, environmentalists, stakeholder groups, and user groups, and the general concensus of opinion is that there is a problem arising from the use of MPV's accessing lanes that were conceived in the days of the horse and cart, with a small amount of negative feedback from the 'petrolheads'. With steady fortitude and influential contacts, evidence is amassed of possible problem areas, and the representative bodies of interested parties tested to gauge and gain a concensus of opinion as to whether a move to restrict, or ban the use of MPV's on Roads Used as Public Paths would be beneficial to the countryside as a whole. This proposed move delights those who favour walking in preference to powered transport. A Green Lanes Environmental Action Management group is formed. Underlying these moves is an embarassment to local government, who since 1968 had a statutory duty to correctly classify all RoW within their areas. Many failed to make headway into this duty, and in 1981 the Wildlife and Countryside Act re-iterated that duty. Still little was done to complete the task at hand. Then in 2000 the Countryside Rights of Way Act gained Royal assent, with clauses stating that all local authorities had until 2026 to correctly classify all PRoW. This was a drastic and unprecedented move, the extinguishment of Rights of Way was serious. If existing RuPP's did not have Definitive Map Modification Orders in by that date, they would automatically be re-defined as Restricted Byway losing any vehicular status they may carry. The section for re-classifying RuPP's to RB was not enacted. That had to wait until the meat of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill could be got through both houses. The process of the NERC Bill through Parliament has had much airing on various forums relating to the use of vehicles along RuPP's and Byways. The Ministers at DEFRA have not been busy drawing up the CRoW Act 2000 which is linked closely to the NERC Bill, for no reason. In one swoop, the statutory duty of all local authorities has been lifted. More than that - they need not process any claims made after 20 Jan 2005 in England, 19 May 2005 in Wales - retrospective legislation, despite governmental assurances that due regard would be paid, and consideration for their present usage accounted for, the motor vehicle user groups were allowed to believe that all was well for their members. It wasn't. Nor was it ever intended to be, government had made it's decision long before. This cannot be just. The countryside users who saw the perceived invasion of the motor vehicle into their midst have been mollified. The Countryside Land and Business Association, a very powerful financial and influential body, have been actively encouraging a disemination of information designed to woo MP's, Ministers and Lords around to their way of thinking. During this period of time, much information was bandied about accusing motor vehicle users of gross misconduct towards other users, and destruction of sensitive wildlife habitat. DEFRA even approached the BBC about the possible affect of illegal "off-road" activity in the popular Radio 4 program 'The Archers'. Power and influence at work. Claims of thousands of deliberate DMMO applications were declared to have been applied for by motor vehicle groups, with the alleged intent to confound the system and the Bill of achieving it's goal. During this time, the Faber Maunsell report had been published, and declared that recreational use of Byways caused little problem, and the network of byways were perfectly capable of sustaining use. This did not suit DEFRA, and was quickly turned into a reason why DEFRA had NOT decided to carry on with the complete banning of all unsurfaced RoW as they claimed many present countryside user groups were pushing for. The DEFRA commissioned report also showed that in terms of damage to unsurfaced roads, by far the biggest culprits were agriculture, forestry, and civil works. Also during this period, the Trail Riders Fellowship had imposed a voluntary moratorium on claims, at the governments suggestion, so as to relieve to some extent the pressure on local authorities. A contradictory claim then arose within government that the moratorium was a failure. Though some claims did go through, they more or less turned out to be ones lodged earlier, but had for one reason or another been held back in the system only to be allowed to continue during the moratorium period. All fuel for the anti-vehicle camp. In hindsight, it has been shown that the 'thousands' of claims did not exist. But the claims of damage, and the "flood" of DMMO applications were red-herrings in a plan conceived long before many users of PRoW had any idea what was happening - quite possibly in the mid eighties or before. When such carefully laid plans to restrict one small section of users were made, shouts of "Foul!" would easily fall on deaf ears - both in Parliament, and in the countryside at large. Who cares if a few bikes and 4x4's cannot mess up a few lanes any more - 'they weren't meant to be driven using the internal combustion engine anyway'. So, do we approach the farmer, forester and civil engineers and tell them they must go back to the horse? Of course not. Forest, field and furrow will still ring to the sounds of the internal combustion engine and chain saw, and their 200+hp will continue to turn five foot diameter wheels and churn the ground. Harvesting and agriculture is big business, and powerful. Goliath has trodden on David. In the light of the way in which government and certain user groups have behaved throughout the passage of the NERC Bill through Parliament, seeking a common ground where all user groups come together to understand each others point of view is about as likely as achieving World peace in our time. In the aftermath of NERC, some will see their hobby snatched away without compromise, for as surely as day follows night, BOAT's will become the next target for restriction. First temporarily, then permanently. Those who previously broke the law by tresspass, or riding without documentation, will continue as before - unhampered by the law. They weren't caught before, they won't get caught in the future. Our over-stretched police force have more important things to do. In some parts of the country, wires have been found strung across know tracks where Motorcyclists have been know to pass. Booby traps have been placed beneath water level in streams - timbers with up pointing nails. What common ground do these people seek? None. They want it to themselves, and government legislation has given them every reason to justify their actions. Where do we go from here? One thing is certain - David lives . . . _________________ Degsy _________________ |
