Richard Fairhurst
(site admin) |
👍
Mon 5 Mar 2018, 12:22 With apologies for the dry legalistic bit, this is important: The application to allow motor vehicles is based on sections 67(2)(a) and 67(2)(c) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. These state (I'm simplifying slightly) that motor vehicle rights could be reinstated if:
If we're to successfully defend against the application, then we need to disprove these two. It's obvious to anyone who lived in Charlbury at the time that the "main lawful use" of the Saltway from 2001-2006 was not for motor vehicles. 4x4s and trail bikes were a very small minority of uses, albeit the ruts that they left at the eastern end (near the Woodstock Road) are still there. So if you can write to OCC with a personal testimony that you walked/cycled/rode the Saltway between 2001 and 2006 and rarely saw motor traffic, please do. I'm less sure on the second one. The Definitive Statement of rights of way before the reclassification (Spelsbury path 31, see it here ) says that it was a Road Used as a Public Path (i.e. motor vehicles allowed) but previously a "CRB", which apparently is a Cart Road Bridleway (or, more fully, "Public Carriage or Cart Road or Green Lane mainly used as a Bridleway"). The Trail Riders Fellowship application suggests they think they have evidence that "it was created... on terms that expressly provide for it to be a right of way for mechanically propelled vehicles". So presumably OCC recorded it as a "cart road" when rights of way were originally set out in the 1950s/1960s, and at some later point it was reclassified to RUPP. I'm trying to find out whether either of these expressly mentioned motor vehicles, but if anyone knows more, please do post here or let me know. |