March 2023
The Green Lane Association (GLASS) publication claims that recreational motor vehicle use of green lanes is appropriate and inclusive, and that closure of green lanes to such use isn’t effective management of these green spaces. Below we (GLEAM, the Green Lanes Environmental Action Movement) correct the many inaccurate and misleading statements and assertions made by GLASS in this publication.
Summary
In this publication[1] , GLASS claims that green lanes are inclusive for people with disabilities, but ignores the factors which make green lanes used by recreational motor vehicles unsuitable for use by those who do not use these vehicles (and some disabled people who do).
GLASS asserts that closure of green lanes to recreational motor vehicles is not effective management, because it fails to deter illegal use, makes the network less inclusive, and reduces species diversity. All three reasons are not supported by the evidence.
Closure of green lanes to recreational motor vehicles, backed up by reporting of illegal use by the public and joint work by the authority and police, have achieved significant reductions (over 90%) in recreational motor vehicle use of these lanes and in illegal use of other land. Other methods of reducing illegal use are ineffective and/or not feasible.
Green lanes damaged by recreational motor vehicles are not suitable for severely disabled motorists. Nor are they suitable for disabled users who wish to walk or use a mobility aid (motorised or otherwise). Traffic regulation orders (TROs) are effective in maintaining (or even improving) the surface condition once the lanes have been repaired, compared to lanes open to recreational motor vehicles where surface damage recurs more frequently after repairs. So opportunities for disabled users who walk or use a mobility aid are enhanced by a TRO.
GLASS’s argument that TROs can cause a reduction in species diversity is a misreading of the academic literature on green lanes, and ignores highway authorities’ duty to keep public rights of way free from obstruction. The evidence from Peak District National Park Authority’s monitoring of Chapel Gate in 2011/12 is that the TRO improved the ecology of the route and its surroundings.
We say that recreational motorised use of green lanes is inappropriate and that closure of green lanes to recreational motorised users is effective, in managing these lanes for the benefit of the environment and of all classes of non-motorised users.
Detailed comments
1. GLASS’s publication is dated June 2022, but it was not published until September 2022, according to GLASS’s Facebook page[2].
Legislation and related research on green lanes
2. On page 8 GLASS says that the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 removed motorists’ rights to use over 50% of green lanes “overnight”, but that this and subsequent closures have “done nothing to improve problem management”. We comment that the NERC Act 2006 provisions for green lanes (and the commencement of the reclassification of roads used as public paths provision in the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000 in 2006) did not come about overnight, but resulted variously from the 2000 legislation, from Defra’s consultation on the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way in 2003 and from national park authorities’ request for traffic regulation order (TRO) powers.
3. When the Land Access and Recreation Association (LARA), of which GLASS is a member, gave evidence to the House of Lords’ Select Committee on the NERC Act in 2017, it argued for changes to the NERC Act and said the provisions in the CROW Act 2000 and the NERC Act 2006 had resulted in “in places and pockets, loss of amenity for the responsible motoring public, degradation of routes for non-motor traffic, an increase in illegal ‘cowboy’ activity, and harm to the local rural economy.” However, the Select Committee concluded in its report in 2018 that, because “trail-riders’ and protection groups alike welcomed the use of TROs in particular circumstances”, improving TROs “should be the first step in any new approach”. It went on to recommend that the “Government should take steps to simplify the process for—and thus reduce the costs of—establishing Traffic Regulation Orders, with the aim of securing better value, greater flexibility and applicability in the use of TROs to manage problems resulting from ‘green-laning’”. This indicates that LARA considered problems on green lanes arising from the 2000 and 2006 legislation were not universal, and that Parliament considered the TRO process should be improved to help authorities tackle green lane problems.
4. On page 8, GLASS says that the Faber Maunsell research report on motor vehicles on green lanes in England which are byways open to all traffic (BOATs), published by Defra in 2005, “found no significant problems ….. with the exception of isolated local issues” and “that the majority of traffic using BOATs did so for the purposes of land management (62%) and recreational use had a far lesser impact in comparison”, implying that most problems are due to motor vehicle use for land management. These statements and implication misrepresent this report. Faber Maunsell estimated that, on average, 42% (not 62% as stated by GLASS) of motor vehicle traffic on BOATs was land management use, 38% was recreational and that the remaining 20% was for access to dwellings. But these averages conceal significant variation between the 20 vehicle logger sites on which these estimates were based; for example the proportion of motor vehicle use that was recreational use ranged from 12% (a BOAT in Essex) to 92% (a BOAT in Hampshire). A significant proportion (45%) of households in dwellings served by or very close to BOATs considered there were conflicts between byway users e.g. between motorcyclists and walkers/horse riders attributed primarily to speed and lack of respect on the part of motorcyclists. Faber Maunsell concluded that there “was no evidence of widespread damage to the byway network from motor vehicles, whether they were recreational vehicles or using byways for land management or access to dwellings. However there were sections of byways that had been damaged by vehicles, usually where there was poor or no drainage or soft ground ….Deterioration in surface condition is most likely where ground conditions are weak (47% by length of the byways surveyed were classed as weak); drainage is poor (70% by length of byways were without either natural or man-made drainage); traffic flows are high; and axle loadings are high.” They also concluded that the “impact [on other users] of motor vehicle use will in general be increased by higher speeds and by higher noise levels” and that the major concerns of residents of dwellings adjoining byways were “motorcyclists, the speed of vehicles, lack of respect for other users and both larger vehicles and recreational vehicles causing rutting”. They did not conclude that land management motor vehicle use had a greater impact on BOATs than recreational motor vehicle use.
5. It should be noted that Faber Maunsell’s quantitative research (vehicle logger counts, moving observer surveys and surveys of households which depend on the BOAT for access or in the immediate vicinity of the BOAT) applied only to samples of BOATs. It did not include green lanes which were roads used as public paths (reclassified to restricted byways in 2006) or unsealed unclassified roads, which resulted in bias towards lowland England, where BOATs were the most frequent type of green lane used by recreational motor vehicles [3].
History of motoring
6. On pages 9 to 12 GLASS writes about the history and heritage of motoring in the UK. It quotes a LARA guide, ‘Managing Motor Vehicle Use’, which claims that the vast majority of green lanes were built for motorised vehicles, and that only a minority are unsurfaced with no engineered drainage or improvements to the road surface. Again these claims are incorrect. Most highways with public vehicular rights in England and Wales originated through use by the public before motor vehicles used these highways. The examples of minor roads over mountain and hill passes which GLASS provides – Honister Pass, Wrynose Pass, Horseshoe Pass, Llanberis Pass, Bwlch y Groes and Bealach na Ba – were not designed and built for the motorcar as GLASS claims. In the Lake District, the Romans were the first to build a road across Wrynose Pass, and the route over Honister Pass “was improved during the late nineteenth century …. and it became part of the tourists’ round trip from Keswick [by horse-drawn vehicle].”[4] In Wales, the road leading from Capel Curig to the Llanberis Pass originated as a pack horse road [5], Bwlch y Groes was a pilgrim route from north-west Wales to St David’s[6] , and the Horseshoe Pass was a turnpike road from 1811 [7]. GLASS’s Scottish example, Bealach na Ba, was a cattle-drovers’ route [8].
7. The UK does have a cultural heritage of motorsport events on unsealed routes, as GLASS says on page 12, but this heritage includes the history of regulation of such events to ensure that they are safe for participants and the public in general. Authorities have made TROs which prohibit recreational motor vehicle use of green lanes, except for specified motorsport events, since 1938[9] and regulation of the use of public rights of way for motor trials “dates back to statutory changes in the Road Traffic Act 1956”[10].
Disability and inclusion
8. On pages 19 to 44, GLASS argues that TROs and other closures on green lanes affect disabled people who use motor vehicles which do not qualify for exemption under the legislation governing TROs and public rights of way, and provides statements from fourteen of its members who describe how using motor vehicles on green lanes has helped them, family members or friends cope with disability. In one of these statements, the GLASS member explains that his friend’s increasing disability meant that he could no longer take him green-laning, as “it was too dangerous to tackle typical green lanes, as these could have hidden ruts, causing unanticipated lurches, which would cause David pain, or worse” (page 29). This indicates that not all green lanes are suitable for all disabled people, because of surface damage. This inference is supported by advice from the Disabled Ramblers organisation that some sections of the Ridgeway National Trail which are open to recreational motor vehicles in the summer are difficult for mobility vehicle users because of “long stretches of parallel wheel ruts”[11] . We would also point out that the TRO process requires authorities “to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic”[12], i.e. the authority should identify which alternative route(s) are available, safe and convenient for motorised users. Alternative routes are likely to offer a similar experience of the countryside for motorised users to the green lane to which they are alternatives. Motorists who use a green lane for lawful access to land, e.g. a fishing lake (page 37) or a car park provided by the landowner, would not be restricted by a TRO.
9. GLASS does not consider the impact of recreational motor vehicle use on non-motorised users. Green lanes are of great value to disabled people who cannot manage stiles and narrow footpaths where, for example, a blind walker needs a guide, walking alongside. Deaf people cannot hear parties of 4x4s or motorbikes. People with limited mobility find that the rutted surfaces left by motor vehicles makes progress even more difficult; learning- disabled people, and people with mental health problems, who seek solace in the peace and tranquillity of green lanes are alarmed by the approach of parties of 4x4s and motorbikes. We think that TROs and other closures of green lanes to all recreational motor vehicles would improve countryside access for disabled people.
Environment and economy
10. On pages 46 to 47, GLASS argues that keeping green lanes open to motor vehicles is good for species diversity. It bases this argument largely by citing a series of papers published by Professor John Dover of Staffordshire University and colleagues. We have looked at two of these. The first is ‘Hedges and green lanes: vegetation composition and structure’ (MP Walker et al, Biodiversity and Conservation, 2006, 15:2595-2610), and comment that the map in this paper shows that none of the green lanes studied are legally usable as through routes by recreational motor vehicles. The increased plant diversity of the double hedgerow lanes compared to single hedgerows was attributed by the authors to reduced pesticide drift, greater shade (in part due to less frequent hedge cutting), increased fertility (nutrient leaching from adjacent fields, defecation from birds and other animals in the hedges and a build up of humus), not to use by vehicles. The mismatch between this academic definition of green lane and GLASS’s is clear from the second paper, ‘Understanding the combined biodiversity benefits of the component features of hedges’ (Wolton et al, 2013, report of Defra project BD5214), which defines green lane as a farm track bordered by a parallel row of hedges (paragraph 1.7). Paragraph 3.13 of this paper cites another paper which “showed that roadside hedges were less favourable than those hedges not abutting a road.”
11. GLASS’s list of references includes a report of 2019 for Bumblebee Conservation, titled Green Lanes for Bumblebees. However this report is not available on Bumblebee Conservation’s website so we have not been able to establish whether the green lanes studied were used by recreational motor vehicles. We note however that Bumblebee Conservation (and Highways England) are collaborating with a researcher at the University of East Anglia who is studying the effects of motor vehicle use (e.g. noise, vibration, polluants) on bumblebees nesting on road verges (https://www.bumblebeeconservation.org/road-verges-for-bumblebee-conservation/), research which may be relevant to green lanes used by motor vehicles.
12. GLASS argues that restricted byways which resulted from reclassification of RUPPs in 2006 have become unusable from overgrowth of hedges and of surface vegetation because recreational motor vehicles no longer use them. We suggest that it is not lack of recreational motor vehicle use which has made these former RUPPs unusable but failure by highway authorities to use their powers (and volunteers) to ensure that public rights of way are not obstructed by overgrowth and undergrowth, whilst ensuring that hedge cutting does not have an adverse effect on species diversity.
13. Contrary to GLASS’s assertion that recreational motor vehicle use of green lanes benefits the environment, there is substantial evidence of recreational motor vehicles being damaging for the environment of green lanes and neighbouring land. For example, LARA’s guide ‘Managing Motor Vehicle Use’ reports widening of and damage to the sandy surface of a BOAT which crosses an SSSI in the Surrey Hills AONB, as its scenario I. Farming in Protected Landscapes funding has had to be used to pay for fencing to stop motor vehicles deviating from Moscar Cross Road, a BOAT in the Peak District National Park, damaging adjacent land and disturbing ground nesting birds. The Peak District NPA carried out ecological surveys on Chapel Gate during its experimental TRO on the route in 2011/12. These showed that the hydrology of the route and the slopes it runs over had improved/been restored, that vegetation was regenerating on the new track bed, and that walkers were no longer using an unofficial bank-top footpath to avoid the route, resulting in its re-vegetation and disappearance over long sections[13]. Dorset AONB’s response to Defra’s consultation on its response to the Landscapes Review cites a case where a farmer is considering ceasing management (grazing) of a high value nature site because his livestock have been frightened (leading to them breaking through the fence) by the noise from motorbikers and by dogs let out on the site by 4×4 drivers on the adjacent green lane.
14. On page 49, GLASS quotes “the Faber Maunsell Report” to assert that the number of complaints about recreational motor vehicle use in national parks is a poor indicator of problems. The link in the footnote shows that this is not the Faber Maunsell report of 2005 discussed earlier, but a later (2007) report published by Defra, on ‘Illegal use of public rights of way and green spaces with public access by mechanically propelled vehicles’. The quotation used by GLASS comes from page 149 of this report and is part of a checklist for authorities to assess if they have a problem with illegal motor vehicle use of public rights of way/land with public access; it is not about use of BOATs and unsealed unclassified roads.
15. On page 49, GLASS also argues that recreational motor vehicle users benefit local economies through the money they spend on this recreation. We have already commented on this assessment in our Autumn 2022 newsletter (http://www.gleam-uk.org/newsletters/Gleam%20Autumn%202022.pdf).
Inclusive network
16. On pages 52 to 56, GLASS comments that closure of non-motorised public rights of way is never considered even if they are out of repair, and contrasts the amount of money spent on public rights of way repairs e.g. by Fix the Fells in the Lake District with the problems GLASS faces in getting highway authorities to repair green lanes. We comment that the repairs undertaken by Fix the Fells to non-motorised public rights of way appear to be more sustainable than those done on green lanes open to recreational motor vehicles. Pages 8 to 9 of the Fix the Fells Winter 2022 newsletter show before and after photos of paths they have repaired, which demonstrate that these repairs have lasted and the paths/surrounding land have re-vegetated, 18, 19 and in one case 25 years later[14]. A comparison with a green lane: Breast High Road, a BOAT in the Lake District, was repaired in 2012 by the highway authority, but is now being repaired again by the national park authority, at a greater cost per kilometre than the highway authority work in 2012[15].
17. On pages 60 to 62, GLASS argues that closure of green lanes is not management. One reason it gives is that closures fail to deter illegal use. Comparison of green lane management in three national park authorities suggests the opposite. In the Yorkshire Dales National Park, TROs have been in place on ten green lanes since 2008/2010. Publicity and enforcement through joint operations by the police and rangers has been effective not only in reducing recreational motor vehicle use of the TRO’d lanes to 10% or less of pre-TRO levels, but in reducing cases of illegal use of green lanes without public motor vehicular rights, and in detecting other motor vehicle offences. In the Peak District, vehicle logger data also shows reductions in illegal use on lanes classified as restricted byway or bridleway or TRO’d following the NERC Act, thanks to reporting by rangers, landowners and the public, maintenance of signage and to police enforcement. The Lake District NPA has a group monitoring illegal and inappropriate motor vehicle use which organises enforcement days with the police, but these have not been effective in stopping motor vehicle use of footpaths and bridleways, and the NPA signage is much less prominent/frequent than that in the Peak District and Yorkshire Dales.
18. Another of GLASS’s reasons is that closure removes opportunities for those who cannot access the countryside without a vehicle. But, as noted above, green lanes with surface damage are not suitable for more disabled motorists. Nor are they suitable for disabled users who wish to walk or use a mobility aid (motorised or otherwise). TROs are effective in maintaining (or even improving) the surface condition once they have been repaired, compared to lanes open to recreational motor vehicles where surface damage recurs more frequently after repairs. So opportunities for disabled users who walk or use a mobility aid may be enhanced by a TRO.
19. We think that GLASS’s argument that TROs can cause a reduction in species diversity is a misreading of the academic literature on green lanes, and ignores highway authorities’ duty to keep public rights of way free from obstruction. The evidence from Peak District NPA’s monitoring of Chapel Gate in 2011/12 is that the TRO improved the ecology of the route and its surroundings.
20. GLASS says that TROs should not be used where illegal driving off them has taken place, because it will continue. But other methods of stopping illegal activity are not always feasible; it would be impossible, and intrusive in a protected landscape, to install automatic number plate recognition cameras on every public right of way where illegal motorised use takes place. GLASS suggests that responsible users will deter illegal and anti-social use by reporting it or even “by their mere presence”. However GLASS members do not always tackle such use themselves. A post on the GLASS South & Mid Wales Facebook page in February 2022 reported that a 4×4 had got “beached” on a BOAT, “until a GLASS convoy came through and pushed them through”[16]. A GLASS member wrote about a green lane trip in the Yorkshire Dales National Park and in Nidderdale AONB, during which his and his friends’ 4x4s were “overtaken by around 15-20 motocross riders who didn’t seem to care about keeping to the lane, that was a bit annoying” on one lane, and “another large group of motocross riders, who again didn’t seem to care about keeping to the lane, … with mud being flung into the air, every single one of them climbed the .. 6 foot tall banking and cut the corner just to avoid waiting 30 seconds for us to pass.”[17] These examples suggest that GLASS is aware of illegal and irresponsible use on green lanes and reluctant to challenge or report it.
21. On page 63 GLASS argues that recreational motor vehicle use of green lanes is less risky than other countryside activities, citing mountain rescue team statistics from 2017. We reported five incidents in the twelve months ending April 2022 in which recreational motor vehicle users or their passengers had to be rescued from crashes or other dangerous situations on green lanes by mountain rescue teams and/or by helicopter, ambulance and fire services[18].
22. The heading on page 65 ‘Overcriminalization – too many laws do not equal less crime’ suggests that GLASS thinks the law which makes motor vehicle use of footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways, and land which is not a highway, illegal without lawful authority, and TROs, are excessive. On page 66, GLASS appears to suggest that enforcement of these laws discriminates against recreational motor vehicle users. We point out that the law against motor vehicle use of footpaths, bridleways and land not part of a highway has been part of UK law since 1930, and that TROs have been used to manage motor vehicle use of green lanes since 1938. A letter from the Ministry of Transport indicates that the former provision was included in the Road Traffic Act 1930 because “the remedies available to the public against any person riding a motor-cycle on a bridleway are for practical purposes of little value” i.e. actions for trespass or anti-social behaviour were ineffectual[19] . It appears that motorists were more likely than other countryside users to cause problems as far back as the 1930s.
23. On page 66 GLASS recommends a LARA publication “where prosecution is necessary”. The police and highway/national park authorities may prefer to use guidance developed for them by Defra and the Welsh Government in 2005, ‘Regulating the use of motor vehicles on public rights of way and off road’[20].
Working groups
24. On pages 75 and 90 GLASS recommends stakeholder working groups for managing green lanes or groups of green lanes. However the two groups it cites on page 90 are either inactive (Friends of the Wayfarer’s Facebook page has been paused since 7 September 2022) or have not succeeded in stopping illegal and anti-social motorised use (Friends of Ramsden Road).
LARA’s guide ‘Managing Motor Vehicle Use in the Countryside’
25. GLASS recommends this guide to authorities on page 75. We have published comments on this paper on our webpage, pointing out where the management solutions it proposes have not worked or are illegal [21].
Codes of Conduct
26. GLASS says on page 79 that recreational motor vehicle user organisations insist on their members adhering to these codes on green lanes. Its own code of conduct says keep groups “to a small number, four or less in sensitive areas, in other areas up to six vehicles”. However, at least one of its affiliate tour guides, Trails & Tracks 4×4 Adventures, frequently runs tours with more than four 4x4s on green lanes in national parks and AONBs.
Notes
1 GLASS, Inclusive Countryside Access https://glass-uk.org/menu-resources/publications/glass-publications/inclusive-countryside-access/viewdocument/252.html
2 https://www.facebook.com/GreenLaneAssociation, post dated 24 September
3 Report of a research project on motor vehicles on byways open to all traffic, Defra and the Countryside Agency, January 2005, pages 3, 108-19
4 Roads and Trackways of the Lake District, BP Hindle, 1984, pages 22, 123-6, 175
5 Roads & Tracks of Britain, Christopher Taylor, 1979, page 164
6 http://exploringnorthwales.blogspot.com/2012/10/bwlch-y-groes-hellfire-pass.html
7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_Pass
8 https://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Bealach_na_Ba
9 Rainow’s Role in Motoring History, Raph Murray, The Raven, No. 19, Summer 2012
10 Motor Sport Events in the Countryside, LARA, 2016, paragraph 4.1.2
11 https://nationaltrails.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/Visiting-The-Ridgeway-as-a-physically-disabled-person-v3.pdf, page 5
12 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, section 122
13 Chapel Gate Experimental Traffic Order Monitoring Report, Peak District National Park Authority, October 2012
14 https://www.fixthefells.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/FixtheFells_Winter2022_Newsletter_Final.pdf
15 https://www.savethelakedistrict.com/_files/ugd/269609_1e25514753ca4646bf92e976a125596a.pdf
16 https://www.facebook.com/groups/381795295351998/ , post dated 12 February 2022 Page 8
17 https://issuu.com/themudlife/docs/tml-issue-36_61ac204d35683a?fr=sNTM0YTQ1Mzk5OTQ, The Mud Life (https://www.themudlife.co.uk/), issue 36, March 2022, pages 78-80.
18 http://www.gleam-uk.org/newsletters/Gleam%20Spring%202022.pdf, pages 6-7
19 http://www.gleam-uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/1930-road-traffic-act-ministry-of-transport-letter-may.png.png
20 https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130402151656/http://archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/documents/countryside/crow/regulating-motorvehicles.pdf
21 http://www.gleam-uk.org/contentious-issues/recreational-motor-vehicle-use-of-green-lanes-dont-be-misled-on-the-facts/ LARA’s scenarios (Appendix A)