The blokes a proper serial complainer, however I’ll post what I put somewhere else:
After a perusal of Mr Miltons letters and dialogue with the council http://www.horseytalk.net/ROW.html, his argument seems to be formed around two areas of discussion
i) His belief/argument that the work carried out to construct the trail on common land needs formal consultation and consent from the SOS, under S38 commons act 2006
ii) An argument that cycling on common land is illegal under S193 law of property act 1925
however I would beg to differ, since IMO the works would not be prohibited by S38 since they neither
i) significantly restrict access or
ii) constitute ‘resurfacing’ within the meaning of the act
PINS produce an extensive document on the correct process for authorisation of works on common land and associated guidance on works that do not require s38 permission
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/…/guidance_sheet_1b…
And quite clearly the construction of a cycle trail falls into the section of works outside the remit of s38, as identical to ‘the creation or widening of unsurfaced footpaths for public use that facilitate access to the common for a legitimate purpose such as recreation, is exempt under grounds a (do not impede access) and c (facilitate access)
Secondly, the argument on cycling on common land is an old one, there is without doubt no automatic legal right to ride a bicycle on either common or CROW access land, and cycling is prohibited by law under s193 of the law of property act on ‘urban commons’ however the law has quite clearly judged (HOL judgement in Bakewell v Brandwood) that the landowner is able to offer “lawful authority” to the use of vehicles on common land, and that cycling both can and should be therefore recognised as a permitted activity on many areas of common land in keeping with their enacted purpose of creating a right of access for ‘air and exercise’ for the public – indeed it is recognised that horseriding was seen as prohibited on common land until as recently as 1998, when a court case finally recognised the pastime as lying within the same intent to confer the broadest possible rights of access for air and exercise by which we as an off-road cycling community would argue the spirit of the law was enacted with, and only sees us prohibited due to our inclusion in the blanket term ‘vehicles’ at a time before mountain biking as a recreational activity was conceived…
Finally, as an important point, I know that the trail being discussed at the moment is still a work in progress, the key factors in the design of a multi-user group interface is the design of the crossing point, and as long as that crucial point is designed with adequate sight lines for both cyclist and horse/rider and in a manner which controls the speed of the rider to minimise the risk of conflict then the risk of problems is removed – its not like this is a new idea and there is established best practice that ensures designed in safety where trails meet other user groups.
🙂
