Byway Open to all Traffic through Dean Grove

Wed 7 Feb, 16:22

Hans, ha, I see what you mean – though I walk it regularly and given this planning ruling frankly the more obscure it is the better.

Wed 7 Feb, 15:24 (last edited on Wed 7 Feb, 15:25)

Thanks Andrew, I get it now. I have tried to walk the proposed path, but it is like a tropical rainforest there once you get past the dutch barn and the landrover/farm machinery museum. There is no way whatsoever to determine where the path is meant to be. It is not there. It is void. Not even pining for the fjords. 

Tue 6 Feb, 22:44

Andrew, I think you'd better delete your post before a certain TV presenter from Chadlington notices it and takes up the challenge!

Tue 6 Feb, 17:55

Hans – ah, it seems the lettering has changed! This is the document sent today, with different points A,B,C…

Tue 6 Feb, 16:54

Thanks Andrew, I thought points c to d were the bone of contention.

Tue 6 Feb, 13:00

The official ruling about this has just been sent out, confirming (see Christine's last message below) that section A-B (the diagonal path across the wood, and the main bone of contention) is a BOAT (mechanical vehicles allowed) but B-C is a restricted byway (ie no mechanical vehicles allowed). The absurdity is therefore supported – let's hope nobody in a 'mechanical vehicle' actually wants to churn up this beautiful path before having to turn straight round and churn it up again as they go back.

Sat 2 Dec 2023, 17:57

Does anybody know the status of the BOAT?

Sat 5 Aug 2023, 18:32

The letter I received simply sends again and clarifies the text of the decision that Andrew Chapman posted below on Wed 5 Jul at 09.40, in a folder (click on Andrew's link, and then the choose the sub-heading '28 June' ). Thank you, Andrew!

It confirms Spelsbury Byway no 44 as a BOAT between points A and B. The modification only concerns points B and C which now does not qualify as a BOAT, but counts instead as a 5 metre wide  Restricted Byway. Point C is where it joins with Charlbury Restricted Byway no 30, at a bridge over Coldron Brook.

The point that one would ideally like to contest is, of course, the Inspector's decision to confirm the right of way between points A and B as a BOAT. But I see no way of doing that, given the whole decision rests on historical maps (and not common sense). The modification is not the point that one would appeal against, but rather the BOAT status of the Byway between points A and B.

Sat 5 Aug 2023, 17:37

Are you able to paste in his email here?

Sat 5 Aug 2023, 13:44 (last edited on Tue 8 Aug 2023, 14:06)

When I read latest Inspector's email I thought it was to make all the route a restricted BOAT, as a modification to the first decision.   So no action needed..??

NOTICE OF PROPOSAL TO MODIFY DEFINITIVE MAP ORDER WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981 Notice is hereby given pursuant to paragraph 8(2)…

Long post - click to read full text

Wed 2 Aug 2023, 20:16

I don't know how to argue the case that this should not go ahead Malcolm. It seems that the route became a designated high way in 2006 so therefore the law is clear it must be a BOAT. Who knows? The inspector makes the point that it is very clear there is a "highway" on the route. We walked there down from Grove lane the other day. And yes past the gate and down to the Dutch barn there is clear evidence of a highway as if somebody has gone down there using a tractor or something (to add more "material". For 80m. Past the Dutch barn it's just a forest and no evidence of a highway or a path of any kind. For 285m. 

Wed 2 Aug 2023, 20:03

Can someone do a Model/Template Letter putting together the main issues and arguments? I don't know how to begin nor what pertinent points to itemise!

Although in the past we used to go with the sproggets that way, many times, I am no longer capable myself of such a route. BUT ANY GRANDCHILDREN ARE. Why should they be denied the joys of which, like whom  can empty the most water from their welly boots on completion of the Watery Lane traverse en route - but then in that future only to be confronted by a Passchendale-esque hell of churned mud from Clarksonite wannabe petrol-head mental sickoes carbonophiles tearing-up the bucolic tranquility and precious ecosystems? Psychology proves water features and countryside heals the modern disturbed mind.

Please, some brighter soul - some guidance of how and what to say!

Wed 2 Aug 2023, 16:37

Thank you, Christine.

Wed 2 Aug 2023, 11:29 (last edited on Wed 2 Aug 2023, 11:30)

I have now received the letter from the Planning Inspectorate explaining how to object to the Planning Inspector's decision on the Spelsbury Byway Open to all Traffic, No 44 Modification Order 2021. 

Objections have to be made in writing, giving the objector's name and address, between 24 August 2023 and 21 September 2023. No objections received outside these dates will count. The letter says a copy of the Inspector's decision dated 28 June 2023 has been deposited in Charlbury Library, as well as in Oxfordshire County Library in Westgate. 

 "[A]ny representation or objection to the proposed modification may be sent to ian.aston@planninginspectorate.gov.uk quoting reference no ROW/3278807 on all correspondence", and should state the grounds on which it is made. 

There's also a mailing address: The Planning Inspectorate, Rights of Way Section, Room 3A, Eagle Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN.

Wed 5 Jul 2023, 11:30

Many thanks Andrew. Below the text of the prefatory letter. As you can see one must look for a notice in a local newspaper for how to object. Me thinks they are trying to make this difficult...

Modifications

1. The Secretary of State or Inspector may decide that an order…

Long post - click to read full text

Wed 5 Jul 2023, 09:40

Christine/Hans –– I have saved all the documents I received in a folder here (the latest under '28 June' and the previous round from May also at this link). (There are hundreds of pages so probably not practical for anyone to print and supply the library.)

Tue 4 Jul 2023, 13:11

Hans, Unfortunately I can't get to a scanner to copy the prefatory letter and notes, as my mobility is currently severely impaired. 

I do hope some other recipient of the inspector's report could make a scan, and ideally also put a copy of the whole of the recent correspondence from the Inspector (Nigel Farthing) in the Charlbury library.

Tue 4 Jul 2023, 11:42

Many thanks to Christine who posted the link to the document written by Nigel Farthing. Reading item 42 "section A – B of the Order route was included in the highway authority’s List of Streets." So it seems it is already a BOAT (but not B-C), however not signposted a such and also not on OS maps.  

He has to advertise the change and one can object to the change, but how is not described in the online document. One needs to look at the prefatory letter for this, which I don't have. Could someone who has it scan this?

Sat 1 Jul 2023, 11:27 (last edited on Sat 1 Jul 2023, 20:27)

I have this morning received the written Planning Inspector's Report about the proposed BOAT. Although I was a consultee, I had not received the email which others seem to have received.

The material is now published online which is, as Hans also notes, at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1166788/ROW+3278807_interim_OD.docx 

There is a prefatory letter which sets out the procedures for objecting, plus some notes about modifications, which does not show up online. However, the accompanying map with a few handwritten phrases and letters does show up on the online version. 

The prefatory letter says that the interim order will need to be advertised before a final decision can be made, and says that in the meantime information can be found in Section 7 of the booklet Definitive Maps and Public Path Orders. It also gives a Customer Services phone line (0303 444 5000) for those without internet access or who wish a hard copy of the information.

Incidentally, Gareth Epps said some harsh things about CPRE and Mr Moon in his earlier post, but CPRE opposed the proposal, and also distanced itself from OFS. 

Fri 30 Jun 2023, 18:32 (last edited on Fri 30 Jun 2023, 18:37)

I found it hard to understand exactly where the BOAT is, see below (for the benefit of others). It is definitely the case that there is a footpath there (i.e. not unrecorded), and I am of the opinion that it should stay so. Amazingly the BOAT runs into Charlbury Restricted byway No. 30. Why have BOAT for a couple of hundred meters in to a dead end? Makes no sense.

Fri 30 Jun 2023, 16:50 (last edited on Fri 30 Jun 2023, 16:52)

It’s definitely a case of “be careful what you wish for”. Mr Moon appeared to wish for it to be a restricted byway, but his evidence as interpreted by the inspector led to it becoming a BOAT instead.

Adrian – thank you for your helpful posting; I’m intrigued as to the process by which a BOAT can be downgraded (“easily added to the list”) to a restricted byway. The only avenue I’ve seen is a DMMO (OCC guidance here, particularly para 2.5), which I would have thought would be unlikely to succeed given the inspector’s very recent interpretation of the evidence. A TRO is the only way forward I can see. But you almost certainly know more than me so I would be interested to find out!

Fri 30 Jun 2023, 14:48

You're right, Rod, that making it ad hominem isn't particularly helpful (though personally I stand by everything I've said, because sometimes you need to say what you believe, just as you have in a similar way, and I'm not ashamed of feeling emotional about the fate of this magical woodland). 

But in fact this whole situation has precisely arisen because of what people think the interpretation ought to be. OCC originally ruled that it should be a path – a decision we must presume was "constrained by the legislation and rules affecting it and is based on the historical evidence", no? But in 2010 Mr Moon said that they ought to have made it a BOAT or a restricted byway, and over a long, time-consuming process we are where we are now. And of course there are historical and legal arguments on both sides (otherwise this would never have had to go to the Planning Inspectorate in the first place) – so it's all about interpretation. 

Fri 30 Jun 2023, 13:14

I never dealt with Rights of Way cases as a Planning Inspector so know little about them.  But as Richard says 'The decision is only allowed to be made on historical evidence of access. OCC or anyone can’t just reverse that. The inspector isn’t allowed to say “oh, ok then” no matter if a thousand people flutter their collective eyelashes at him.'

In other words - since some people appear unable to understand this - the decision isn't about what you think ought to happen, it's constrained by the legislation and rules affecting it and is based on the historical evidence.  Ranting about the person charged with making the decision is unhelpful, distracts from what the case is really about and is frankly rather childish.  So there!

Thu 29 Jun 2023, 23:27

This thread is enlightening, not least because it may be providing a reason for something other than justified suspicion at the actions of the Oxfordshire Fieldpaths Society.  However, said group’s actions and complete failure to explain them would be something best addressed by them.  I’m sure the County Council after a decade of austerity isn’t exactly going to be replete with resources to prevent some of the idiotic behaviour that could in theory be enabled by the OFS and the so-called council for the preservation of rural England.

For the record, as far as I’m aware Charlbury Town Council hasn’t had any correspondence on this.  This leaves us in a difficult position in terms of asking the County Council to restrict the use of the byway against the wishes of the faceless Government inspector.

Thu 29 Jun 2023, 21:10

Chadlington and Spelsbury are lucky enough to share the same clerk. She wrote to the inspector objecting to the possibility of 4x4 use, and says it is clear from his recent report that he expects OCC to preclude this by downgrading the track to restricted byway. I do not think anyone wants or expects 4x4s on this track, so there will be plenty of us supporting and encouraging OCC to get on with the downgrade.

The automatic downgrade of roads used as public paths to restricted byways only took effect on properly recorded routes, and as we know, this route was entirely unrecordrd until OFS took up the case

Downgrade is another legalistic and bureaucratic procedure, but that is preferable to authorities governing without regard to rules. 

Thu 29 Jun 2023, 20:34

Is this for real? Some people seem to be in favour of SUVs heading in to a very special local forested locale with unique flora and fauna. 

Anyway a person local to the madness has emailed me to say "he refers to the 2006 act, which extinguishes motorised traffic rights on unrecorded rights of way, unless an exception applies. In this case, he concluded no exception applies."

Read that once, twice, and again. Will there be SUVs? Or not. I am none the wiser. 

Further, the local person also says he is changing "status of the route to a Restricted Byway, with a width of 5m. It will be advertised to allow objections".

Hence my earlier comment. Whom do I contact to allow objections? Anybody knows?  

Thu 29 Jun 2023, 07:06 (last edited on Fri 30 Jun 2023, 07:08)

Adrian, thank you for setting the context here – and of course anything that is done to preserve lost rights of way is laudable (a big issue with the Definitive Map deadline looming in 2031 – see the Don't Lose Your Way campaign). My frustration here is over the irony that the energy that went into confirming this path as a right of way is now being misdirected into confirming its status as a road, when it is obvious to anyone familiar with it that it is not necessary for it to be one, even if it was used like that 200 years ago. I love history – a field I work in, in fact – but there are times when common sense should prevail over preserving the exact historical circumstances. I can't see how the present situation is doing anything more than wasting public resources to prove a legal point for the sake of it.

The mud that the government officer squelched over and the fallen trees he had to step around for his report are ample evidence that nobody needs this as a road; it exists as a path to preserve a historic right of way (for which thanks). Why does it need to be more? 

I appreciate of course that Mr Moon himself advocates the 'restricted byway' status, which now seems the best hope (other than just leaving things alone). So what can we now do to urge OCC to bestow that?

Wed 28 Jun 2023, 22:04

Hi. My name is Adrian Tremlett. I am a retired solicitor and served 10 years on Chadlington parish council with responsibility for rights of way.  By law our county council must keep a register of rights of way - also known as highways, which term includes tracks, bridleways and paths…

Long post - click to read full text

Wed 28 Jun 2023, 21:11

It does say interim - it should be restricted byway: maybe it has to be full boat before it can be restricted ?

Wed 28 Jun 2023, 21:10

You don’t, I’m afraid – not unless you’re a genius local historian who has spotted something really obscure everyone else has missed. The decision is only allowed to be made on historical evidence of access. OCC or anyone can’t just reverse that. The inspector isn’t allowed to say “oh, ok then” no matter if a thousand people flutter their collective eyelashes at him.

It is possible for OCC to put a traffic regulation order on it, which would mean “ok, we accept this is a Byway Open To All Traffic, but we’re prohibiting motor traffic for reasons of preserving the natural environment”. But as per my post of 27 May 2021 the officer concerned wasn’t keen to do that proactively.

Maybe the off-road brigade will leave it alone. I don’t know. It’s a dead-end and won’t be a big draw. My worry is that it only takes one person to drive along it “because it’s there” and that alone would cause significant damage to the path.

Wed 28 Jun 2023, 19:26

This is so bad. To whom do I write?

Wed 28 Jun 2023, 17:01 (last edited on Thu 29 Jun 2023, 06:52)

As a contributor to the consultation on this, I have just received an utterly depressing email with the planning inspectorate's 'interim order' (i.e. objections are still possible). The imbecilic conclusion is that the diagonal route across the beautiful Dean Grove should be marked not as a footpath (as at present) but as a byway open to all traffic (BOAT). 

Note this from the inspector (who I suppose is 'only doing his job', as all soulless bureaucrats do):

"The point is made that, if confirmed, the Order will record a route which, for motor propelled vehicles, would be a cul-de-sac ending at point C. Concerns were expressed also about the environmental impact on the ancient woodland habitat. I understand the points made but, as they concern matters which lie outside the criteria set out in the relevant legislation, I have not given them any weight in reaching my decision."

If anyone more expert than me on the legal details has a strategy for plausible objection, please do share it so we can try, yet again, to encourage common sense.

All of this nonsense was caused by the folly of the Oxford Fieldpaths Society, who claim to love the countryside but whose actions appear to indicate the opposite.

Wed 7 Jun 2023, 13:17

I was trying to find out what was happening to this after having walked in the area a few days ago.

This from Dec 2022 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1122793/row_3278807_on___Order_combined.odt

It seems that there is a no from Defra, but Mr Moon could apply the decision within a short timeframe. That's all I could find. Anybody knows more?

Thu 20 Oct 2022, 10:07

Dean Grove is a completely magical little piece of woodland. The thought that this will be destroyed in the name of progress is appalling, and to my mind, unforgivable. What progress does this actually represent?

Tue 18 Oct 2022, 15:54

I’ve forwarded this to the current town council. I suspect the written procedure is probably best for all concerned (I don’t think it precludes a site visit if the inspector sees fit) – I attended a similar inspector’s review very many years ago and it was mostly just people reading out preprepared statements.

Tue 18 Oct 2022, 15:28 (last edited on Tue 18 Oct 2022, 15:33)

Hans, Whether the change will happen or not depends on what the Planning Inspector decides. I don't know more than that -- not even about whether OCC is inclined to support the proposal for change or inclined to oppose it.

It's all incredibly legalistic. The question for next week is whether or not anyone who has already put in an objection or representation objects to it all being decided on the basis of written evidence, or whether somebody wants to insist on an enquiry that involves the Inspector, the objectors and applicant being there in person if they so wish. Everyone needs to agree to the written representation procedures before this method can be adopted. It looks as if there might be cost implications if an in-person procedure is involved, but I don't understand the details of that.

Richard Fairhurst and Roger Clarke (as Clerk to the Town Council) put in an objection on behalf of Charlbury Town Council, even though Richard had already stepped down from the Council. Roger is also now longer on the Council. I don't even know whether Richard, Roger or somebody now on the Town Council has received a copy of the recent letter which says that if no objections have been received by 26 October, consent to the written representation procedures will be assumed. 

It will take at least 14 weeks for actual comments to be received and responded to after the start date (whenever that is). The Inspector will make a visit to the site whichever procedure is adopted.

Tue 18 Oct 2022, 14:19

Do you know if the change will happen?

Tue 18 Oct 2022, 13:34 (last edited on Tue 18 Oct 2022, 13:39)

I've now received a letter through the mail from The Planning Inspectorate about the Spelsbury Byway Open to all Traffic, No 44 Modification Order 2021.

I take it that other people who put in objections or comments on the proposal have also received a copy of the same letter. Those who originally objected to Spelsbury Byway being made a BOAT have until October 26th (not long!) to object to the Planning Inspector dealing with the matter solely via written representations.

I am unfamiliar with these types of enquiry, and would be interested to have any feedback from others on this. The booklet which I was directed to online (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rights-of-way-guidance-booklet) is very detailed, but not very easy to understand.

I'm not clear, for example, whether one can rely on the local authority to submit to the Planning Inspector all the objections that were made to them.

Any thoughts could usefully be posted here. Also let me know if you have not yet received the Planning Inspectorate's letter, and I'll pass on the email address etc. My letter was dated 12 October 2022, and was received 15 October 2022.

Fri 28 May 2021, 07:30 (last edited on Fri 28 May 2021, 09:36)

Maybe worth contacting the Woodland Trust or getting some publicity? This really is a beautiful wood and is packed with wild flowers, such as wood anemones, which are an ancient wood indicator. Anyone got a hotline to Chris Packham? 

Fri 28 May 2021, 07:21

Apparently orchids are protected by Section 13 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) – they can't be uprooted unless by an 'authorised person', whatever that means. (No doubt the 'authorities' can authorise themselves!) I did mention the orchids in my letter, though I realise this won't cut any ice as the objections have to be on specific grounds relating to rights of way. 

Thu 27 May 2021, 22:13

There are quite a few wild orchids there at the minute. Aren’t they protected? 

Thu 27 May 2021, 21:11

I’ve now sent the objection in from CPRE Oxfordshire.

Thu 27 May 2021, 15:39 (last edited on Thu 27 May 2021, 15:46)

Saskia, Thank you. Very interesting. And different from the reply that I received.

It's what I tried for in my response to the Inspector's report; but I am really not sure if the case that I put forward is likely to be accepted. 

Just in case my objections were to be accepted, I do still think it might be helpful to have people writing in to say that there had been no evidence of the footway being used for motorised vehicles in recent years and/or since 2006 when the  Environment Act came into effect. (Earlier posts on this thread relate to the Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.) 

Thu 27 May 2021, 15:18 (last edited on Thu 27 May 2021, 15:21)

I've sent a further objection on behalf of the Town Council (I thought I'd escaped that, but the new council asked me to follow up the previous objection, so there you go).

The response from the OCC officers to our initial objection was that, if the reclassification took place, and "if severe problems arose associated with motorised vehicular use of the route, OCC may consider the options available to it in terms of restricting use through the use of Traffic Regulation Order powers. This would need to be in response to evidence of problems over a period of time".

In fact, councils can and do impose TROs proactively, it's explicitly anticipated by the legislation, and some councils have it as policy. I've therefore sent an exceedingly long and tedious response to OCC citing the various bits of legislation and guidance that they should be working to.

I won't bore people with the full text here, but if you're having difficulty sleeping, you can look up section 5 of DEFRA’s ‘Regulating the use of motor vehicles on public rights of way and off road’ (in particular, the advice that “Traffic regulation orders can be used to prevent problems from happening, not just stop the damage once it has already occurred”), and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, particularly sections 1 and 122A.

Thu 27 May 2021, 12:03

Just to let you know that following my objection I got a very helpful letter from the Council, where they poiinted out the following:

"As you also say, Mr Moon would prefer that the route be recorded as restricted byway as he has no interest in the route having higher rights than that, but as he is well aware, the matter must follow the evidence and is not down to his personal choice of highway. The only way that the route can be confirmed as restricted byway is by acceptance that the evidence shows there to be historic rights for vehicles but that these have, in some way, been impacted by the effects of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 which extinguished unrecorded rights for motor vehicles but this is subject to exceptions.

They also pointed out the Council would again let the SoS know they would not support the order and that it will then be in the hands of the planning authority.

So it seems some knowledge of how to use this Natural Environment Act is the best way to actually get the order overturned but I am not familiar with this Act.

Wed 26 May 2021, 20:39

Saskia, The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) will ask for a restricted byway, rather than a BOAT (see Philippa Phelan's post, below) and that is certainly an option.

I still think there is a long shot that the whole thing might be overturned; but it's very technical and probably not likely. But I have tried for that in my submission. One never knows. 

I also think it important to register how valuable this path is to local people, as well as to wildlife and to the landscape of the Cotswolds. It might also be relevant to report that no vehicles have been observed using the path, if that is indeed the case.

Wed 26 May 2021, 16:12

Apologies 'vehicular' rather than 'motorised' in 1779! Ans per the appeal. It seems from some googling that 'restricted byway' does not allow for motorised vehicles. So, would asking for a 'restricted byway' be a case to make, as thats the prefered option in the appeal? Also any other legal arguments, referring to right of way, that can be used would be good to hear as ecological or health arguments dont seem to count.

Wed 26 May 2021, 15:23

I’ve written (emailed) and lodged an objection.

Wed 26 May 2021, 15:09

Saskia, some succinct definitions are here – briefly, a BOAT allows all vehicles and an RB allows horses and bikes but not motor vehicles.

Wed 26 May 2021, 14:28

Hi all, I am writing also a complaint and am reading through the documents. Mr Moon's appeal ays about the Dean Grove section that he wants it to be classified as a BOAT or as a 'preferably a restriced byway.' Can anyone enlighten me what a restricted byway is exactly? Surely his argument that in 1779 there was motorised access does not hold today?

Tue 25 May 2021, 22:26

I've also now responded. 

I used two of Andrew's points; one made by CPRE (Inspector has gone beyond what was asked for); and pointed to  the very recent change from the Cotswolds AONB to Cotswolds National Landscape (and the importance of preserving the landscape); also some issues to do with whether this should have been treated as continuing a proposal first put forward in 1991.

Who knows if anything will have a chance of being effective? We can but try.

Tue 25 May 2021, 20:41

I have responded, but realise that my comments may be discounted as the proposal strictly speaking is confined to the immediate vicinity of Dean Grove. My comments were primarily aimed at the unsuitability of upgrading Watery Lane to BOAT status, although in winter months a boat might be the most suitable form of transport!

Mon 24 May 2021, 13:31

Andrew, Thank you.

To remind people: Any objections or representation must be made in writing to the Principal Officer, Countryside Records, Oxfordshire County Council, Ground Floor, County Hall, Oxford OX1 1ND, or countrysiderecords@oxfordshire.gov.uk

Mon 24 May 2021, 13:21 (last edited on Mon 24 May 2021, 13:25)

May I remind everyone that the deadline for objecting to this proposed change from footpath to BOAT is this Friday, 28th. 

My main points of objection are: (a) no demand for vehicular access (b) no precedent for motor vehicles at all (c) no precedent for any vehicles since the 1880s (d) environmental damage. I realise these may not all be taken into consideration, but hopefully some will. There is absolutely no evidence that this has been or needed to be a through route since the Ordnance Survey surveyed the site in 1880.

Thu 6 May 2021, 10:22

Thanks Liz for forwarding the statement and thanks Andrew for your willingness to share your thoughts on how best to respond. I look forward to learning of them when you are ready.

Wed 5 May 2021, 14:07

Alas the explanatory statement doesn't really give much to go on in terms of how to respond unless you're an expert on the technicalities (see my note below, 3 May). I think Richard has given us the most plausible grounds, again below. I've had a conversation with Mr Moon this week, and he has certainly reassured me he doesn't have any agenda other than the historic right of way, although he appears to be keen on it being possible for horses to use the route in question. He contends that it would be a useless route for motor vehicles anyway as they would have to come to an abrupt halt at the Coldron Brook and go no further south-eastwards; a fair point, but alas that doesn't really stop the potential ruination of the flora if a BOAT is actually implemented on the ground, as it were. I'm pondering how to respond effectively - Brian, happy to share my thoughts when I've arrived at exactly what they should be!

Wed 5 May 2021, 13:51 (last edited on Wed 5 May 2021, 13:54)

Brian, I will forward you the explanatory statement. I wouldn't advise a template letter as this may be discounted.

Wed 5 May 2021, 09:57

I am sure that there are many people in Charlbury who, like me, just do not understand the complexities of this subject yet wish to voice their concerns and do whatever they can to stop something harmful happening to our beautiful surroundings.

If numerous submissions to the consultation are deemed to be beneficial, might it be possible for someone to provide a template that people such as me can use?

Alternatively, or maybe additionally, would it be possible for the town council to compile and submit a list of those people in support of the council’s submission?

I am really grateful for the time that contributors here have been devoting to the subject and I would hate to subsequently discover that a decision had been made which adversely affected the countryside, when I and others like me didn’t know how best to make our views known.

Wed 5 May 2021, 07:56

Perhaps the inspector who made the decision should be invited to verify its appropriateness by test driving his car along the route starting at Pound Hill? He would not get very far!

Mon 3 May 2021, 18:52

I noticed that the Inspector mention the fact that Watery Lane is on OCC's 'list of roads' maintained.  Which it is up to the end of the stoney part but not further. The Salt Way is similarly recorded yet that is a restricted byway?  

Mon 3 May 2021, 13:25 (last edited on Mon 3 May 2021, 13:25)

Thank you, Christine, and Richard for this amazing work - especially as you enter your final days as chair! I assume the map evidence you mention is the 1890s OS map, which does show the track in the grove, but it very clearly comes to an abrupt halt at the SE corner, at the parish boundary. (I'm told the landowners are looking into older documents just in case.) Question: does this sort of situation gain any benefit from the numbers of respondents to the consultation?

Mon 3 May 2021, 12:55 (last edited on Mon 3 May 2021, 12:56)

At last week’s Town Council meeting, the council voted for the chair and clerk (i.e. me and Roger) to respond to the consultation, which I’ve now done. Although, as Andrew says, it’s in Spelsbury parish, it’s a path used and valued by Charlbury residents, so it’s entirely valid for us to respond to the consultation.

We’ve asked OCC to apply a Traffic Regulation Order to the section through Dean Grove to prevent motor vehicle use. Although the Sandford Principle doesn’t apply in AONBs, there are several well-established reasons for applying TROs, and “conserving the natural beauty of the area” is one of them. We’ve therefore reminded OCC of the path’s location in the AONB, and asked them to use this and other, similar qualifications as grounds for a TRO.

We’ve also made two separate points about the continuation of the path into Charlbury parish (i.e. the route through to Watery Lane). We attached map evidence showing that this was not used as a through road at the time that the Spelsbury section was believed to be so, and therefore no upgrade to BOAT status is merited. Second, we’ve asked OCC to confirm that the Charlbury section was not on the List of Streets before the 2006 Act, and therefore the exemption that the inspector uses to justify BOAT status would not apply.

We have asked OCC to reply on these points, and as soon as they do I’ll post further.

If anyone is able to find historical evidence disproving the inspector’s findings that would be ideal. But I think it’s risky to rely entirely on this being unearthed and then accepted by OCC. So asking for a TRO seems like a must in any case.

(I will reserve my feelings on the Oxford Fieldpaths Society for now!)

Mon 3 May 2021, 12:20 (last edited on Mon 3 May 2021, 12:25)

Thank you, Andrew, for raising this again. I hadn't forgotten, but I was waiting to see if others had some better ideas than I have had.

The trouble with the Planning Inspector's Appeal Report is that it accepts that the outcome is not ideal in terms of the habitat, the…

Long post - click to read full text

Mon 3 May 2021, 11:07 (last edited on Mon 3 May 2021, 11:11)

I'd like to bring this thread up again to avoid it being forgotten - the deadline for responses is 26 May. It seems that nobody actually wants this route to have BOAT status; and I'm told the landowner is aware of the situation and is against that too. The explanatory statement that Liz mentions says: 'To be relevant, objections or representations should relate only to the question of the existence or status of rights of way.' So what actual arguments are there we can use to preserve this either as the current footpath, or at most a restricted byway? (I note that Mr Moon's original documents from 2010 express a clear preference for the latter rather than a BOAT. I have sent a message to him via an intermediary but haven't heard anything yet.)

And I'd like to invite all of the prospective town councillors to engage with this issue and share with us the steps they will take to support the protection of Dean Grove. (I don't think 'But it's in the parish of Spelsbury' is an acceptable answer…)

Wed 21 Apr 2021, 14:54

This application was not made by CPRE but by Oxford Footpath Society as Mr Moon volunteers for both organisations. OFS had very good intentions of ensuring the route got recorded to go on the Definitive Map for posterity but it seems like the inspector went beyond what was asked for and felt it should be classified as BOAT. CPRE West Oxfordshire will be writing to OCC to push for a reclassification to a restricted byway and if that is refused requesting an RTO on the route. 

Mon 19 Apr 2021, 09:01 (last edited on Mon 19 Apr 2021, 09:02)

The OCC Countryside Records Officer has sent me a very helpful Explanatory Statement about the reasons for the order and how to object.  In it he says "The Council will be willing to discuss the concerns of those objecting or making representations relating to the order. Please contact the Countryside Records Officer on 07789 653140."  If you would like a copy of this statement, which I don't think has been uploaded to the OCC website, please let me know and I will forward it to you by email. 

Mon 19 Apr 2021, 08:35

“I have not visited the site, but I am satisfied that I can make my decision without the need to do so.”

This is Point Two from the Inspector’s Decision, the first of which tells us that he has been directed by the Secretary of State.....blah blah blah blah blah, so this is coming from the top.

As with WODC, it appears that most of the officials who end up making their decisions have very little or no knowledge of the local natural environment that they are happy to urbanise.

Sun 18 Apr 2021, 17:31

I haven’t contacted CPRE (yet) but have emailed the OFS to see if they can put me in touch with Mr Moon - I think it might be helpful to understand the purpose. It *seems* to be about technicalities and not wanting to lose rights of old trackways - but clearly here local context is everything and it would be a very blunt instrument to endanger these woods for potential vehicular access that nobody needs or even wants. I’m absolutely all for preserving public rights of way, but that’s not what’s being threatened.

Sun 18 Apr 2021, 16:35

Has anyone contacted CPRE Oxfordshire yet about this? The application seems to have been made by “Nicholas John Moon on behalf of Oxford Fieldpaths Society c/o CPRE Oxfordshire”.

Having ferreted through the documents both at Frank’s original link and those concerning the appeal (and in particular, the appeal decision), it seems that the Inspector has only formally ruled on the Spelsbury parish footpath being upgraded to BOAT, but that his reasoning applies to the entire Pound Hill—Dean route.

If this were to be opened to motor traffic as a result of an application made by CPRE (the Campaign to Protect Rural England)… well, words fail me! That couldn’t happen without OCC reclassifying the Charlbury section, but it might be difficult for them to refuse in the light of this decision.

What could (and I’d hope would) happen is that OCC could impose a Traffic Regulation Order, even if the route were reclassified. This would effectively be saying “yes, we agree this is a road, but we’ve put no entry signs on it”. It’s fairly commonplace and these paths would seem to qualify under several of the criteria.

Sun 18 Apr 2021, 15:57 (last edited on Sun 18 Apr 2021, 16:00)

Gareth -- Just not understanding your post. The NERC Act  dates back to 2006 (and a Labour Government). As far as I can see the only thing still be changed under this Govt is a clause to do with Marine Management.

The 2006 legislation was in part designed to prevent the seemingly endless disputes about motor traffic being able to use green lanes, and where the evidence that was presented was based on historical maps and thus related to a time when, as Liz points out, modern motor vehicles simply did not exist. There was a date (20th January 2005) after which new cases could not be lodged, except under very exceptional circumstances. 

Nick Moon seems to be objecting to that as a cut-off date in the case of Dean Grove. Not sure why it is thought helpful to hear his case or to contact him, since he has set out his case in great detail in 72 pages (largely maps and historical records). (For the link see Andrew Chapman's post.)  Also not sure why you think it has anything at all to do with "proposals to shut off some old rights of way that this Government are pushing through in an anti-“trespass” initiative". 

I am not sure what Nick Moon's motives might be. But really it hardly matters, because if the path is opened up to all vehicles (which is what he is asking for) it is likely to become very wet and muddy (and less suitable for walkers and less protective for rare plants and the environment). 

Also, his request has the potential to open up again all the old debates about the differences between stagecoaches, cart and horses and motor vehicles that were supposedly put to bed by the 2006 act.

Sun 18 Apr 2021, 14:42

Christine - thanks.  The legislation can be found at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/16/section/67

This would seem to relate to proposals to shut off some old rights of way that this Government are pushing through in an anti-“trespass” initiative.  It would be interesting to hear Mr Moon’s thinking.

Sun 18 Apr 2021, 12:06

I have now glanced through the documents that Nick Moon supplied and see that he seems to be arguing that Section 67(1) of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006 should not apply to several sections of this route. (The Charlbury section is also mentioned.)

The whole thing is amazingly complicated, and there is an organisation (gleam-uk.org) that Richard Fairhurst identified in relation to the Saltway. It has a huge accumulation of knowledge -- and may perhaps be able to offer some legal advice.

Their web-page dealing with exceptions to the 2006 act is here: http://www.gleam-uk.org/guidance/evidence-of-motor-vehicular-use-under-the-nerc-act-2006/

They also have a page dealing with the outcome of various recent legal appeals.

NB: it's important to register that decisions made with regard to one BOAT have implications for other footpaths and green lanes. That was the case with The Saltway and once again in this case.

Sun 18 Apr 2021, 09:08

Lol!  That occurred to me as well Philip, but I was too timorous to publish.

Sat 17 Apr 2021, 20:53

The Trail Riders Fellowship are a great bunch of people who have rendered considerable service to the results teams at local horse trials, they are not a bunch of hoodlums. It seems a shame to me that they were unsuccessful in their claim re The Salt Way, a relatively well drained track, but Dean Grove / Coldron Mill / Watery Lane is a rather different matter.  Come to think of it, The Salt Way would make an excellent by-pass for Charlbury. (joke!)  

Sat 17 Apr 2021, 20:42

Excellent point, Christine.

Sat 17 Apr 2021, 20:29

Liz, Is it worth looking back at Richard Fairhurst's post with regard to the Saltway on 6 March 2018? (Link in my previous post.)

Richard wrote: <<The current OCC guidance says "A claim to add (or upgrade to) a BOAT may only rely on documentary evidence demonstrating an express intention to create a right of way for motorised vehicles", which appears to reflect the legal status post-NERC 2006.

So although the inclosure maps might have been evidence for proving the creation of a "road", which before 2006 could have been used to argue for the right for motor traffic to use it, that no longer seems to apply. Had TRF applied before 20th January 2005 they'd have had a case, but (mercifully) their application was made on 27th March 2006.>>

In fighting the case for the Saltway being redesignated a BOAT a number of people were encouraged to write in and say that there had been no recent evidence of the Saltway being used for motorised vehicles.

As long as the original application for redesignating Dean Grove as a BOAT was not made before 20 January 2005, I would have thought that the same arguments would apply.

Sat 17 Apr 2021, 19:01 (last edited on Sat 17 Apr 2021, 20:06)

The decision has been taken by a planning inspector on behalf of DEFRA. OCC rejected the application for the path running through Dean Grove to become a Restricted Byway but at the appeal the planning inspector used the fact that this once formed a road between Dean and Charlbury to rule that the route should be re-designated as a BOAT. I had a meeting with the officer at OCC who has been dealing with this and he has sent me the relevant papers.  

We can appeal this decision - but it is complex.  Although we might want to appeal on the grounds that it will destroy a tranquil ancient piece of woodland full of rare plants this will carry no weight -  objections were made on these grounds at the appeal but they were discounted. The only way to appeal this is to look at the technical reasons why the decision was made and work out any flaws in the argument.  

The argument that this was once a road therefore it should remain a road is on the face of it preposterous as the last time it appeared on a map as a thoroughfare was when the internal combustion engine was in its infancy, though the argument given is that the public right to use it as a road has not been extinguished. Any footpath that was once a road could in theory be subject to the same argument so I think it is very important that we oppose this and we have till May 26th to appeal against this decision.

If you would like to get involved please message me through this website and perhaps we can set up a group to look at what we can do

Sat 17 Apr 2021, 18:08

On the Oxfordshire definitive map a restricted byway was created in 2012 which runs from Watery lane parallel with the footpath westwards, then carries on westwards and in last field does a dog leg to get to gate into the woods.   Bridleway rights stop there at the parish boundary.  This application would mean the route for walkers, riders and cyclists could continue and join bridleway nr Dean pit as was, and avoid the roads which are quite narrow and busy.  And should be restricted as well...

Sat 17 Apr 2021, 16:04

A document here - https://consultations.oxfordshire.gov.uk/gf2.ti/f/1208994/83178725.1/PDF/-/Appeal__ALL_APPENDICES.pdf - suggests Mr Moon has been involved with this for over a decade, by the look of it with good intentions as Christine suggests. I haven't had a chance to digest all 72 pages of historical information here yet! But that doesn't change the fact that allowing vehicles along that particular path would have a major deleterious impact on a magical piece of woodland. I will see if I can get in touch with Mr Moon.

Sat 17 Apr 2021, 14:58

There's a long thread about BOATS on this forum back in 2018 -- and in fact another one prior to that. Searching for BOAT in the MAIL SEARCH box brings up the links.

But the most useful thread is here: https://www.charlbury.info/forum/5084#29576

I was one of those who put in an objection in 2018 to the Saltway becoming a BOAT -- and our objections were successful.

Having followed up the links in the Frank Payne's post to see if it was the same organisation (the Trail Riders Fellowship) that put in appeals for so many of Oxfordshire's footpaths to be tuned into BOATs, I see that this is not the case.

This time the applicant is a Mr Nick Moon who publishes numerous maps and guides to footpaths, and it is indeed not the only application/appeal that he has lodged. He is recorded as being linked to Oxford Fieldpath Society. The Society seems to have laudable aims, and it might be useful to talk to the OCC about the implications of this. OCC officers were very helpful back in 2018.

Sat 17 Apr 2021, 14:04

Definition:
BOATs allow the use of wheeled vehicles of all kinds, but the highway is normally used for walking or horse riding. Driving of off-road type vehicles for recreational purposes often happens along such highways. They are not usually surfaced, and can get very wet and muddy for obvious reasons.

It is not clear if this includes Dean Grove, I sincerely hope not it’s such a peaceful walk

Sat 17 Apr 2021, 13:08

That would be a huge relief Richard, thanks for pointing it out.

Sat 17 Apr 2021, 13:01

I don’t think through motor traffic would be possible – the section in Charlbury parish is still a Restricted Byway, i.e. no motors. Horses and (chunky-tyred) bikes would be able to use it as a through route, though.

Sat 17 Apr 2021, 12:43

Surely this can't be possible! Dean Grove is semi-ancient woodland with amazing flora and an incredible atmosphere. Making that diagonal path into a track would require mass destruction of trees. Thanks for drawing attention to this, Frank.

Sat 17 Apr 2021, 12:13

I noticed yesterday that signs have been put up by OCC at the entrances to Dean Grove informing that a new Byway Open to all Traffic (BOAT) is to run through the middle of Dean Grove in a South Easterly direction, then across the adjacent fields  eventually linking up with Watery Lane, which will be upgraded to a BOAT. I'm hoping it is not what it seems, but on the face of it anyone with a suitable four wheel vehicle would be able to drive from Pound Hill across the valley all the way to Chadlington, cutting right through the middle of Dean Grove.

I've given a link to the relevant OCC web site here:

consultations.oxfordshire.gov.uk/03092.MadeOrder/consultationHome

It appears that the OCC originally rejected the application for this, but an appeal to the Secretary of State was successful in getting it approved.

Does anyone know what this will mean in practice, as on the face of it I fear that the tranquility of Dean Grove might be severely disrupted, as well as the wild life and flowers that are there. Or is this just a technical change in the status of the various tracks involved?