Representation by Trail Riders Fellowship (Trail Riders Fellowship)
- Date submitted
- 10 January 2019
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
The Trail Riders Fellowship (“TRF”) responded to the consultation on 23 April 2018, and to the supplementary consultation on 13 August 2018. TRF objects to the application for the following reasons.
For recreational vehicular users, the scheme extinguishes the historic connection between Byways Amesbury 11 and Amesbury 12, turning Byway 11 into a dead-end;
While an alternative link was originally proposed (and supported by TRF) that has been removed from the scheme for which consent is sought;
TRF members and others have used Byways 11 and 12 as a valuable part of the local network of byways open to all traffic (BOATs) and unsealed unclassified public roads for many years;
Highways England has not explained how the extinguishment of vehicular rights without providing an alternative right of way complies with s.136(1) of the Planning Act 2008;
In any event, the justification for removing the link is flawed and/or based on inadequate analysis; and
Separately, the proposed byway on the at-grade line of the A303 should be available for small-capacity two-wheeled vehicles.
TRF is a national membership organisation, incorporated and limited by guarantee. Its objects are to preserve the full status of vehicular roads and green lanes and the rights of motorcyclists and others to use them as a legitimate part of the access network in the countryside. It wishes to present evidence to the examination on the above points and to take part in issue specific hearings no traffic and rights of way impacts.
Having regard to the desired word limit, these representations are deliberately short. However, it is important to emphasise a few points.
First, on two recent occasions planning inspectors following extensive inquiries have recommended that Byways 11 and 12, as linked by the existing A303, serve an important amenity function for motorised users. In 2005, an inspector rejected the then Highways Agency’s proposal to leave Byway 11 as a dead-end stating that “cannot … represent a reasonably convenient alternative provision”. In 2011, a separate inspector rejected Wiltshire Council’s proposal to prohibit vehicular traffic on Byways 11 and 12 due to the loss of amenity and increased safety risk. Those conclusions hold good and have been ignored by Highways England.
Secondly, Highways England in its Consultation Report does not address s.136(1), which prevents the extinguishment of public rights of way (“PROWs”) without providing an alternative, unless the provision of an alternative is “not required”. TRF explained the effect of this provision in its April 2018 response. Nor does Highways England explain how its proposals for Byways 11 and 12 are compatible with para.5.184 of the relevant NPS.
Thirdly, the purported justification for removing the link is in any event unfounded. There is no reason to consider that the provision of a link (as opposed to the existing use of the A303) would have an adverse impact on archaeological, landscape or nature conservation interests. To the extent that there may be impacts (which is not accepted), it does not appear that Highways England has given any consideration to avoiding or mitigating those impacts.
Finally, we note that Highways England states that “[c]hanging the status of existing BOATs is beyond the scope of this scheme and is a matter for Wiltshire Council as the local highway authority”. However, the DCO does change the status of existing PROWs by stopping up the link between Byways 11 and 12. It may be noted that in TRF v Wiltshire Council [2018] EWHC 3600 (Admin) the High Court quashed the Council’s traffic order on Byways 11 and 12. The Secretary of State should be cautious about proceeding with proposals that prejudice and/or cut across other statutory mechanisms.