Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Corporate Director of Regeneration and Local Services regarding an objection to an experimental traffic regulation order to prohibit 4WD vehicles on Wolsingham Byway 157 (Hexham Lane) (for copy see file of Minutes).

The Senior Rights of Way Officer explained the background to the report and provided the Committee with a detailed presentation to assist with the detail provided in the report, as follows:-

·         location plan(s)

·         explanation of the experimental order

·         by-way inspections

·         photos of pinch points/4 wheel vehicle damage/wet areas/sand areas

·         key comments from the inspections; and

·         summary of objection

(for copy see file of Minutes).

In terms of objections, the Committee were informed that landowner one had requested that all motor vehicles are prohibited from using the Byway to ensure it remained in a useable condition for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. He provided photos in February 2017 which showed significant damage caused by 2W vehicles. He also described 2Ws accessing other areas and causing distress to his livestock and that 4WDs had ignored the ban and accessed the byway from other estate tracks. He also considered that the damage to the byway created safety issues for his employees and impacted on those who were using the byway on foot or horseback.

Landowner two had made three separate reports between November 2016 and March 2017 about motor bikes ridden off the route of the byway and causing upset to pregnant cows and sheep, leaving gates open and driving too fast. Responses to the objections were summarised to the Committee and were detailed in the report.

The Senior Public Rights of Way Officer explained to the Committee that monitoring of the condition of the byway throughout the period of the experimental order had indicated that the surface had been able to withstand use by 2WD vehicles. Although, there had been some changes in the condition of the byway and the weather/seasonal conditions did impact the robustness of the surface, it had withstood usage.

Usage by 4WD vehicles was still evident, however owner/occupiers of the land were not excluded by the prohibition and banning of these users would not be considered lawful. The impact of 4WDs during the experimental order period had further compounded the view that (apart from the excepted 4WDs described) these vehicles should continue to be prohibited due to the poor structure of the sub soil.

Officers were recommending that the experimental order be made permanent.

The Committee then head from a representative from the Green Lane Association. The representative felt that motorists had been represented very unfairly in the presentation provided to the Committee.  Whilst it was fair to suggest that the lane did lapse in condition during the winter months, the Association felt that a lot of the damage came about as a result of a lack of maintenance and explained that the route tended to be neglected at times. The Association felt that tractors were the biggest single cause of damage to the lane and felt that some basic maintenance and user restraint at the right time would help alleviate some of the problems that were being encountered. There were many lanes throughout the country in similar conditions to Hexham Lane which remained open.

The Association also explained that they had funds to help with maintenance of the route and always promoted restraint to all its members during bad weather. The Association were disappointed that the photos shown to the Committee had been taken at the worst time of year.

In summing up, the Association felt that it was unfair and unreasonable to blame groups such as the GLASS and the TRF for the actions of a small minority. They felt that a ban would simply serve to punish those who used the byway responsibly and suggested a seasonal ban would be a fairer and better solution. They felt that this would also resolve any issues regarding ‘spooked’ cattle and usage over winter. The Association spoke of their good relations working with local authorities and cited partnership working with both Essex and Surrey County Councils and suggested that there was no reason why they could not work with Durham in the same way.

The Public Rights of Way Officer explained that the decision required by the Committee was to decide whether or not to make the experimental order permanent. No representations had been made by motor vehicle users in the six month period where objections were invited.  Prior to the experimental order, the lane was in a terrible state and all vehicles were banned. In terms of four wheel drive vehicles, it was explained that these were heavier in nature and carried more load on the day.

The Highway Development Manager explained that the Council did consider a seasonal order, referred to by GLASS, however, the area generally suffered from significantly wet ground throughout the year, therefore the idea was dismissed, as it was felt that the surface would be damaged throughout the year. The Highway Development Manager also explained that at present the lane didn’t appear in too bad a condition, however, this was due to the current ban on four wheel drive vehicles. In terms of voluntary restraint it was considered admirable that some did exercise restraint, however there was video evidence of completely unacceptable behaviour that had been viewed.

Councillor Shuttleworth felt that there should be a total prohibition to all vehicles and didn’t believe that such areas should be used as ‘adventure playgrounds’. Councillor J Shuttleworth would preferred to have seen the experimental order extended for a further year.

Councillor A Gardner thanked the Rights of Way Team for their comprehensive report and fully understood the concerns of the landowners. In light of this Councillor Gardner expressed his support and moved the recommendation detailed in the report.

Councillor Ormerod felt that the recommendation struck the right balance and that the route should be available and reassuring for walkers and horses to use. Councillor Ormerod was in no doubt that four wheel drive vehicles were causing the damage.

Councillor O Milburn asked if landowners used four wheel drive vehicles on the route and if the County Council was responsible for the upkeep.  She also queried whether the landowner should contribute towards maintenance and repairs.

The Public Rights of Way Officer informed the Committee that the landowner at the southern end of the route had carried out a considerable amount of work. She was not aware of any maintenance undertaken at the northern section of the route but explained that the landowner was not under any obligation to do so.

Councillor S Dunn explained that he was horrified after seeing the photos contained in the officer’s presentation at the damage caused by vehicle use.  He felt that people should be allowed to freely walk the route and was happy to second the recommendation.  Following on from the point made by Councillor Milburn, Councillor Dunn requested that officers ask the landowner to consider maintenance to the problematic areas and seek some form of contribution.

Councillor P Oliver informed the Committee that he had listened to the comments made and the observations made from the PowerPoint presentation but felt that the route should be open for everyone to use and that by closing the route would lead to other similar routes being closed. Councillor Oliver also felt that four wheel drive vehicles were being singled out unnecessarily in this case.

Councillor Hugill informed the Committee that he was a landowner who had experienced similar problems of rutting, which he attributed to 4WD drive vehicles undertaking quick starts etc. Councillor Hugill agreed that the only vehicles that should be used on the land were those intended to service livestock.

Councillor Turnbull informed the Committee that he tended to agree with the comments made by the representative of GLASS and queried why information had not been provided to the Committee regarding dialogue between the Association and the Council regarding use of volunteer labour.

The Public Rights of Way Officer explained that the issue was greater than any sort of volunteer labour would resolve.

Upon a vote being take it was

Resolved

That the Committee note the objections made and that the Committee recommend to the Corporate Director of Regeneration and Economic Development that the Experimental Traffic Regulation Order is made permanent.