LANING LIFE

by Lauren Eaton

Read about green laning as seen through Lauren ‘Sunshine’ Eaton's windscreen at The Green Lane Association, and find out what’s hot, or not, in the laning world each month. Enjoy!

Trouble up North, again!

It seems that some of our friends in the north refuse to collaborate with those who have contacted them on matters pertaining to lanes in the area. While we get no response from our communications, they are happy to quote us in news articles without any prior discussion of the matter.

This is the latest article about Scaley Gate -

(https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/country-and-farming/yorkshire-residents-fed-up-of-relentless-convoys-of-green-laners-considering-legal-action-3424373?fbclid=IwAR1Ly1_bI9E_8Mi2zCGC9lU2rjs8swM2Rlok6wbZJepRhljGTHjPCW_wnYk )

One of our Yorkshire reps is quoted in it, but as you can see it isn’t very complimentary about 4x4s! So, below is my response which is unlikely to see the light of day anywhere other than here in The Mud Life.

Dear Yorkshire Post,

Having read yet another article regarding the Scaley Gate area, I have to admit I am rather confused as to why either you, or any of the complainants quoted in your articles, have failed to communicate directly with the Green Lane Association. Although, from comments such as: "Even if the vehicles are legal that legality doesn’t mean they are nice people, so that argument is irrelevant. The nice ones are like unicorns."

I can hazard a guess as to why, but that reason would have no basis in fact, and is clearly defamatory.

As a national organisation, with 26 years of experience of working directly with Local Authorities, National Parks, the police, and other stakeholders to tackle issues reported on public rights of way (PROWs), we can offer a lot towards a solution to the alleged situation.

Not only do we advise and work with those who have a legal duty to preserve and protect the rights of way network in their counties, we also regularly take legal action against them when they fall short of their legal duty. Surely this is of clear use to those quoted in the article and to you as a journalist? Yet no communication has been forthcoming.

While your article will appeal to many readers who are not conversant with laws pertaining to rights of way in the UK, I am afraid to those of us that are, your narrative, and that of those quoted in the article, reads as one full of ignorance of the law of the land, with a heavy inclusion of personal bias.

The glaring inaccuracies include the following:

1. The Traffic Regulation Order on Cheese Gate Nab is temporary, not permanent as is alluded to and apparently believed by those quoted in your article. This temporary closure is a common action that GLASS support. TTROs are applied to allow repairs to be carried out - this is not a legitimate tool to stop motorised use or to remove access rights, it only has a duration of 18 months and cannot legally be renewed ad infinitum.

2. “Local's considering legal action to close Scaley Gate”. The relevant highway authority is the only body that has the power to legally close a public road. There is a clear legal process to follow if a closure is proposed which includes a period of public consultation. It is also the Local Authority’s legal duty to protect and preserve access to the rights of way network rather than to make attempts to reduce it. GLASS can provide advice on ROW law to local residents should they request it and take legal action when local authorities fail to act, we are fully conversant with the processes, and have ongoing involvement with such actions.

3. For information; unsurfaced public roads that are legal to drive using motorised vehicles fall into two categories. Byways Open to All Traffic (BOATs) and Unclassified County Roads (UCRs). Both are public roads/highways and are subject to the Road Traffic Act. It would be pertinent to add that not all UCRs are unsurfaced, it is likely that you live on a UCR, which is a good example that they are considered in law to be part of the ordinary road network, therefore closure is not a simple matter.

4. Attempts to close routes wholesale to motorised users simply to exclude them would be vigorously opposed using a variety of legal precedents - closure is not the solution and in some cases causes problems in itself, this will be discussed below.

County Councils have a legal duty to protect and preserve access to the rights of way network in their area. To extinguish public motorised rights in their entirety in perpetuity simply because of the behaviour of a few that can and should be prosecuted under existing legislation is not an option when the alleged problems have not been addressed by sound management strategies. There are legal processes to follow, but published hyperbole and one’s own personal opinion of a situation is most definitely not part of that process.

Closure has proven to be an unsuccessful form of management. Historic cases only prove that closure does nothing more than move the problem elsewhere or fail to deter those who had no respect for the law in the first place, therefore only restricting legal use rather than addressing the irresponsible few. Reducing the overall network also increases local usage on other PROWs as user numbers will not decrease simply because the network does.

GLASS are far more proactive in their methods of addressing illegal and irresponsible use. Rather than being satisfied that there are no longer any users, whether responsible or not, on our doorsteps, which would appear to be what your quoted sources want, we make attempts to deal with the problem directly by addressing the matter centrally with those who have a duty and power to prosecute, educate against, and manage illegal behaviour. Acting locally does very little other than to appease local complainants, at least until they identify another target to complain about, and so we act nationally to address the issue as a whole while maintaining access for all responsible users.

Nationally, vehicle users only have access to only a tiny proportion of the PROW network (circa 3%). Therefore, it is fair to say they are a minority user group in comparison to others. Often those users are less able, disabled or elderly and a vehicle is the only way they can access the countryside, I include myself in that statement.

Disability is a protected characteristic in UK law, and positive action (a legal term meaning 'legal action') can be taken where those who fall into that category are put at a disadvantage. Without redressing the removal of rights by ensuring that these rights are catered for elsewhere on the PROW network, it is arguable that a disadvantage will be the result of closures or restrictions on a minority and vulnerable user group, thus leaving local authorities open to positive action being taken against their decision. As I have said before, local authorities have a legal duty to protect access to the network and must do so without discrimination.

If it were true that “When they’re outside it’s horrific. But they think it’s hilarious. It’s day and night. It’s relentless.” surely the police have been involved and many prosecutions have taken place? If not, why not?

GLASS would be very happy to pursue this matter directly should the complainants be able to prove the incidents occurred, and that their reports to the police have been ignored. Without proof that the above statement is correct, neither GLASS, nor the police, could act.

We have been met with similar allegations in the past, in these cases we, along with land owning authorities, have organised user counts and surveys. In all cases to date the actual situation on the ground, i.e., numbers and frequency of users and their behaviour, has not once matched those accusations.

Similar evidence gathered by land managers has been used in court and during judicial review processes. We would be more than willing to conduct a similar survey of the contested area; in fact, it would be necessary before any allegations could be considered to be factual in order for an accurate assessment to be gained and a management strategy formed based on evidenced results.

When it comes to allegations regarding the personal attributes of 4x4 drivers, the quoted statements are quite frankly disgusting.

Are you aware of the 4x4 Response network? Or of the Mountain Rescue service?

I am keenly aware of both, having been a member myself in the past. As an Executive Officer of GLASS, I work alongside these organisations; one of my own team is a Mountain Rescue driving instructor, many of our reps are 4x4 Responders or Controllers, and all use the unsurfaced road network to train on and to access incidents/casualties.

Are these people “not nice people”?

It would appear that giving up their free time to drive NHS staff to work in the snow or floods, to carry water to assist with moorland fires, or to put their lives and vehicles at risk to save that of another, would be a rather 'nice' thing to do, would you not agree?

Without green lanes to train on, or to use to access wildfires or casualties their jobs would become far more difficult than they already are, and response times would increase putting others in danger. These volunteers are not paid for this vital service, 4x4 drivers donate their time and vehicles, and if we are to take your articles and the views of those quoted in them as read, they are not appreciated either!

Are some “not nice people” simply because they are disabled, elderly or ill, and require the use of a vehicle for outdoor recreation?

My next trip on Saturday will be to take out a terminally ill GLASS member before he will no longer be able to access the countryside even with use of a vehicle. The following trip will be to liaise with a local authority regarding habitat management and conservation of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Both will be carried out voluntarily with a cost to me in time, fuel, and resources.

Neither I, those I will be working with, nor countless others within our organisation or the 4x4 community who carry out similar tasks day in and day out, deserve such a tirade of nimbyism and defamation aimed at them in the public domain based solely on their choice of vehicle.

Despite such a derogatory and ongoing campaign against our community as a whole, rather than one being aimed at those who break the law, GLASS are willing to liaise with you and the complainants quoted in your articles.

This is an open invitation from me personally to attend a public meeting with all parties to assess any documented evidence of the allegations made, look at proof that no action has been taken by relevant authorities, and to construct a proposal to approach those who have the power to make positive changes to the situation.

I would like to request that a copy of this letter and my contact details are shared to all those quoted in your articles to date.

This is what GLASS does - we are not interested in supporting illegal PROW use, or blindly protecting rights of access while ignoring problems, we are committed to tackling problems while protecting the rights of those who do not deserve to be restricted or harmed by illegal/anti-social behaviour and/or unfounded allegations. The latter helps no one, some accurate information and transparent communication would be far more beneficial to all concerned.

I look forward to hearing from you.

We can but try as they say! Whether or not my offer of a meeting is accepted is currently unknown, but probably unlikely.

Unfortunately, few of those who shout very loudly in the press or on social media are ever willing for a face-to-face chat over a cuppa. It is a shame as it is my preferred method of working, especially if there are biscuits involved.

I’ll keep you all up to date on any further news from Yorkshire.

That’s all from me this month folks! Happy Laning, Lauren x