Legal Case – Morchard Bishop, Devon
August 2008
GLEAM, through the Green Lanes Protection Group (GLPG), has been very active in two legal test situations – Winchester, Hampshire and Morchard Bishop, Devon . These are of vital concern to anyone trying to protect green lanes and to prevent them from being wrongly classified as Byways Open to All Traffic (BOATs). The sequence of events on the Morchard Bishop case has been as follows:-
This case involved an old (1983) BOAT claim that had been rejected without appeal in 1987. Vehicular rights were subsequently found to exist. The Trail Riders Federation claimed that the 1983 application, being pre-cut-off (20 January 2005), should under the NERC Act give rise to exemption from extinguishment, and vehicular rights should be confirmed. This argument was based on the fact that the Act does not explicitly say that such claims, to be exempt, still have to be outstanding and undetermined. Advice from Defra supported that argument. The Inspector at the Morchard Bishop Public Inquiry followed Defra’s advice, and upheld the TRF claim for BOAT status. Clearly, if this was correct, a very large number of ways that were the subject of pre-cut-off BOAT claims that were either rejected or had became lower-than-BOAT entries on the Definitive Map & Statement, and that we thought had been protected by the NERC Act, could now become BOATs. Such original claims could date back as far as the invention of BOAT claims in the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act, and potential new claims could extend indefinitely into the future. An Opinion, funded by local residents, was obtained from George Laurence QC supporting our view. Under pressure from us, armed with this Opinion, Defra reversed its advice, following which the Inspector reversed his decision. The time for lodging an appeal against the Inspector's reversed decision has now expired, and no appeal has been lodged. This is a very satisfactory outcome to this case. Although such a decision does not carry general legal authority, it is unlikely that the same argument will be pursued or could succeed elsewhere.
Back to News page
August 2008
GLEAM, through the Green Lanes Protection Group (GLPG), has been very active in two legal test situations – Winchester, Hampshire and Morchard Bishop, Devon . These are of vital concern to anyone trying to protect green lanes and to prevent them from being wrongly classified as Byways Open to All Traffic (BOATs). The sequence of events on the Morchard Bishop case has been as follows:-
This case involved an old (1983) BOAT claim that had been rejected without appeal in 1987. Vehicular rights were subsequently found to exist. The Trail Riders Federation claimed that the 1983 application, being pre-cut-off (20 January 2005), should under the NERC Act give rise to exemption from extinguishment, and vehicular rights should be confirmed. This argument was based on the fact that the Act does not explicitly say that such claims, to be exempt, still have to be outstanding and undetermined. Advice from Defra supported that argument. The Inspector at the Morchard Bishop Public Inquiry followed Defra’s advice, and upheld the TRF claim for BOAT status. Clearly, if this was correct, a very large number of ways that were the subject of pre-cut-off BOAT claims that were either rejected or had became lower-than-BOAT entries on the Definitive Map & Statement, and that we thought had been protected by the NERC Act, could now become BOATs. Such original claims could date back as far as the invention of BOAT claims in the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act, and potential new claims could extend indefinitely into the future. An Opinion, funded by local residents, was obtained from George Laurence QC supporting our view. Under pressure from us, armed with this Opinion, Defra reversed its advice, following which the Inspector reversed his decision. The time for lodging an appeal against the Inspector's reversed decision has now expired, and no appeal has been lodged. This is a very satisfactory outcome to this case. Although such a decision does not carry general legal authority, it is unlikely that the same argument will be pursued or could succeed elsewhere.
Back to News page