Dear
Mr Bartholomew,
To
respond to your letter of 29.9.08 complaining that I am mistaken in
writing in TRF TRAIL that UCRs have presumed vehicular rights.
And
that the TRF should refrain from using those UCRs that do not have proven
vehicular rights as they break the law.
I
note that YDGLA plans to
apply
for UCRs to be reclassified as BRs.
A huge task involving a lot of public money, which in the current crisis
I doubt will ever be carried out.
Already
the process of dealing with the many valid and invalid Byway claims
I made for the TRF seems to have ground to a total halt for this very
reason. Needless to say I stand by all that I have written in TRAIL about the
presumed vehicular status of UCRs.
I
shall make a few points, though somehow I dont think YDGLA will be
changing its views on this controversial issue.
First
of all I am sending you by post a copy of "UCRs A Study into
their status"
A
TRF Commissioned Report by three distinguished Independent Rights
of Way Consultants, all professionally qualified MIPROW or FIPROW. Let me
have your comments when you have read it.
And
I will also enclose the DEFRA official response to the Study
who agree with the Reports conclusions which are that "most things
recorded by authorities as UCRs DO carry vehicula rights"
The
TRF goes a little further and adds that this applies on the balance of
probability and in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Highway
authorities do vary. There is of course no statutory definition
that UCRs are carriageways nor is there any High Court decision to this
affect.
I
quote ( 9 Nov 2004 ref SER/IT/H200.0410) Northumberland County
Councils Principal Solicitor on this matter which is typical:
"In
general terms the Council as a Highway Authority would take inclusion of an
unclassified road on the list of streets as being an indication that it carries
vehicular rights"
"However
in the event of a dispute the evidence would have to be looked at"
Now
this is what I also believe and generally accept as does the TRF.Note that only
in the event of a dispute will the HA start investigating,meanwhile like most
HAs the presumption applies.
Hence
when I say there is a presumption that UCRs do carry veh rights I am not
plucking facts out of the sky, and encouraging TRF members to break the law as
you assert. It is a view held by many who have studied this complex
subject.
I
agree that not every single UCR on the List of Streets can be proved to have
veh rights.
You
call for every UCR to be examined and vehicular rights determined.
That
is not a job for the TRF, but for the highway authority to carry out.
Somehow in the current climate I cannot see this being done ?.
Also
it is a matter for the police and highway authority to take enforcement
action if they think a vehicle user is breaking the law. By the way what
exactly is the offence? I am not aware of anything in the Road
Traffic Act l988 that makes it an offence to use a UCR on the LoS.
As
you say we disagree on many things. You are a campaigning
organisation against vehicular use of green lanes, and will object to new
Byways.
We
wish to use green lanes within the law which in the case of using
UCRs, we are confident we are within the law.
If
anyone disagrees they are free to challenge such use in the courts.
So
far the law enforcement agencies have decided not to do so.
You admit that the police are most unlikely to do anything and that it would
not be in the public interest.
We
are fully aware that highway authorities have all the powers they need to
control and regulate traffic (TRO) if any problems do arise from vehicles on
green lanes ,as we have seen recently in the YDNP !
That
is the regulatory system we live with and accept. That seems to satisfy
most highway authorities and police forces.
I
rest my case.
Yours
etc,
B.G.THOMPSON
Member
of Institute of Public Rights of Way Management.(since l988),
Churchill
Fellow l984,. FRSA.
7th
October 2008