Garburn pass change in status

From restricted byway to BOAT according to a planning notice in the Westmorland Gazette. Whatsthataboutthen?

Byway Open to All Traffic

I know what a BOAT is, I was pondering why it's status had changed. Lobbying from the 4 x 4 brigade?

I didn't know what BOAT was so thanks to neil for pointing it out. Sounds a shame really as it will now end up f'ked like most of these routes. Surely there is a route for appeal before it gets too bad.

FFS. A great route about to be ruined by idiots in 4x4s.

Would they be able to get up/down the Kentmere side? I can't say I love 4x4s but I'd imagine Garburn can probably take it being pretty rocky – might mean it changes a bit more often as they move rocks around etc.

The Kentmere side is easy for them but i think they will find it hard from Troutbeck after the rain damage.I don't have a problem with 4x4s on Garbun,it was used by them for years.

Looks like it's rght

Clicky link

Summed up as "they used to have hill climb competitions there in the 1920s and 30s, so it's a road"

I have a picture of my grandad on a motorbike and sidecar on garbun from
the 1930s.

IMO, we ought to focusing more on converting (all) footpaths to bridleway status, than worrying about the 'upgrading' to BOAT's. I kinda feel sorry for the 4*4 and motorbikes as they are having less and less places to go – and consequently overdrive/ride those that are legal – a bit like ourselves really…

Scotland has the right idea.

br good call!

i think this got posted a while back and one of the lakes people gave a detailed response
local authorities are having to carry out public right of way reviews and there is a timescale – here in sheffield byways/unclassiffied roads are part of that review and without looking at the document there was as part of the conclusion that as motorised off roaders have access to think it was less than 2% of public rights of way they may be getting a bad deal

one action a local authority i believe can do is correctly acknowledge that a route is a BOAT but then choose to restrict it – like in the Dales
I hope this is what is going to happen with Garburn
I believe that the noise and speed of offroading is not acceptable in a National Park. (full stop)

br has a valid point – though i'd have some enthusiasm to allow all non-motorised transport access to all CROW land and footpaths with proviso must give way to walkers and horseriders – tis simple

I believe that the noise and speed of offroading is not acceptable in a National Park. (full stop)

Hmm, wouldn't that also apply to all motorised traffic – like on the road, and aeroplanes?

Lets not get in with the anti-everything brigade – they managed to practically cease motorboat traffic on Windermere – and the consequently loss of income to the area.

Exactly. People are the worst offenders. Let's ban those too.

b r – Member

Scotland has the right idea.

Remeber the scottish access is not absolute but qualified by the need to be "reasonable"

What is reasonable will continue to be clarified in court but in my opinion and that of others some of the riding that some folk do in England on bridleways would not be considered "reasonable". Large groups in areas of high usage by others. Causing erosion by the numbers of people using them. That sort of thing.

There is a longstanding tradition of access to and use of the hills in Scotland – but most of us who use them understand that with rights comes responsibilities and that you do not have the right to ride your bike when, where and how you like.

Hmm, wouldn't that also apply to all motorised traffic – like on the road, and aeroplanes?

only if you irrationally extend the argument – i think the use of the word offroad suitably qualified the statement suitably

i do consider the noise from microlites intrusive in the peak and they need to have a limited noise level or should face a ban

and yes i would vote to ban cars from travelling up to fairholmes

opinion on windermere is that it was a poor decision – based on it being the only lake that had motorised use out of 50 odd? and has a busy main road alongside it

Garburn was a BOAT for years and only down-graded in recent times. The Land Rovers, etc., didn't damage it back then so why should they now?

The only 'problem' they cause is that they go so damned slow but they always let you pastwhen they spot you.

As a once member of the Cumbria TRF (trail riders fellowship)I think regrading it to a BOAT will mean it benefits from a bit more maintanace from all user groups,this is can only be a good thing for the quality and consistency of the surface.

There are a few Commercial operators in the Lakes that do fund, and repair the roads that they use.

Local authorities dont seem to have the time,money, or resourses to maintain rights of way on a full time basis. 😥

The tarmaced roads are bad enough!I think quiet enjoyment of the Lakes is the biggest threat from the antis,The TRF campaigned for a yearly permit system to fund trail repairs,this was dismissed as unworkable by the National parks,as no one was prepared to control it,due to the QE policy as above.

"Sounds a shame really as it will now end up f'ked like most of these routes"
"A great route about to be ruined by idiots in 4x4s"
But garburn pass is worn down to bedrock/rock along its whole length is it not? (My memory of it has faded somewhat, so I could do with an update)
Surely they won't manage to put passive boggy ruts it in as its reasonably well established.
If there is, you'd think they'd manage to erode to the bedrock making it a bit more interesting for MTBing?

"believe that the noise and speed of offroading is not acceptable in a National Park"
Motorbikes I sort of agree, but 4x4s seem to travel at about 2mph everywhere. Or does mean being a boat both are automatically allowed (and that being your point ..)

"i would vote to ban cars from travelling up to fairholmes"
Where would they park if they didn't? Its nicer up beyond fairholmes up toward the packhorse bridge (slippery stones) anyway (regardless of traffic)

At least there has been a proper debate about access unlike in Derbyshire where the RoW dept hampered every attempt to establish BOATs until CROW came in and then miraculously created loads of BOATs and then promptly restricted 'em. I can understand the feeling about vehicles in the countryside but vehicular RoWs are a tiny %age, even less than 2% after CROW.There are a lot more walkers than MTBers and many of them would like to see us off our legal RoWs so we need to keep an eye on what happens to vehicular use as it could be our turn next. And yes, I am an ex-member of the TRF but have transferred entirely to MTB because I got fed up of the hassle and having to defend Tossers on Crossers!

Had a ride up Garburn today,past Dubbs to the top then came back down via Troutbeck,the trail above the campsite and down to Troutbeck is well washed out.

it will be fine. i have ridden that route for about seventeen years and have seen the big tyred crowd up there countless times(well i probably could count them but you get my jist)it wont change much.

somewhere i posted
"believe that the noise and speed of offroading is not acceptable in a National Park"
james wrote
Motorbikes I sort of agree, but 4x4s seem to travel at about 2mph everywhere. Or does mean being a boat both are automatically allowed (and that being your point ..)

think it is simple make it non motorised (and time change like when bridleways legislated mtb didn't exist) – quads are midway (and big wheel motorised trikes will come!) and go very fast – some 4×4's motor when it is less technical – i've been forced off the track by a speeding 4×4 on flat section of lambert rd – above holmfirth

FOG rolls out the MTB will be next argument – yes but only if accept that a human propelled mtb is some way similar to a bike with an engine
– simply it isn't: speed/noise/intrusion/extent of erosion are very different – MTB has a very weak/split voice – this needs sorting as other bodies (ramblers/horse riding) will exploit this unless can be educated to perceive that a pedal bike is not a motorbike

FYI Garburn was spoilt to allow the passage of vehicles on the Troutbeck side about 4 years ago, when the gnarliest bits were smoothed out. Erosion had started to restore its former charm. I'd be interested to see a 4×4 coping with the Kentmere side without a) a winch b) remodelling

antigee
"I believe that the noise and speed of offroading is not acceptable in a National Park. (full stop)"

And how many people think that about Mountain Bikes in National Parks?

Ace they can make it nice and rough again, although looking at MrPinks photo it's nearly there now anyway.

Wasn't the Troutbeck side of it a BOAT anyway?

What’s this all about……I’ll tell you.

Firstly you need to bear in mind that recording of rights of way is done only on facts. There is no latitude for ‘it’s not suitable for motors therefore don’t record it’ or ‘it would be nice if it were bridleway (BW) not Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT)’. If you could show that a route had ancient cart rights (or any wheeled vehicle) then it could be recorded as a BOAT.

Secondly the cost of maintenance and that liability (whether it is the landowners, the Highway Authority (council, National Park etc)) is totally independent of what rights are over the route.

Short history, from 2003 the government undertook consultation then set out it’s will that use of unsurfaced rights of way by recreational motors was undesirable and that a bill would be laid before Parliament to this fashion. This became part 6 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) becoming law on 2 May 2006.

In that Act a line was drawn under the recording of any more motor rights (essentially BOATS). The way the Act is written means that on midnight on 1 May 2006 all rights to drive a motor anywhere in England and Wales were extinguished however certain exceptions were given so that rights were preserved ‘on the ordinary road network’. One of them is that if rights were created by motor use before 1930 then they are preserved. That is the clause that probably preserves rights to drive on the street outside your house.

Back to Garburn……..

Any rights on the bridleway that is Garburn would be extinguished so that the highest rights possible would be a new type of right of way called Restricted Byway. This is essentially a BOAT but with no public rights to dive powered vehicles. I.e. it is OK for walkers, horses, cycles, horse & carts etc…….However….. the recreational motor users have put in a claim that it is exempt of NERC as rights were created by motors prior to 1930. Essentially they are trying to record rights by using a loophole that was designed to preserve rights on the ‘ordinary road network’. Bearing in mind that motors probably didn’t make it much outside London before 1900/1910 and 20 years use is normally needed to show dedication this is a very high bar to get over. Also note the rights must be created by motors so if ancient cart rights can be shown to exist then the motors can’t have ‘created’ them.

A Government Inspector has looked at the evidence and decided on the balance of probabilities that rights were created by motors prior to 1930 so hence the announcement in the Westmorland Gazette. There have been objections however including those from GLEAM and a private individual in the Yorkshire Dales who are trying to refute this. The decision has not been made yet.

The future…………
If Garburn is found to be a BOAT (and so open to public motors) there is little doubt that the only recreational motors will be trail/scramble motorbikes and rugged 4x4s. If this is thought to be undesirable for other users and for the environment then NERC Act gives the National Park the power to impose a Traffic Regulation Order on the route, to prevent use by recreational 4x4s and trail motor bikes and leave it for non-motor users. They may feel that the cost of maintenance is disproportionately high for what might only be 200 motor users per year, for example is £50k maintenance a good use of public funds when spread over that number of vehicles.

So watch this space, there is a long way to go yet before things are finalised.

C

Further reading

http://www.gleam-uk.org/guidance/%5B/url%5D

http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/documents/countryside/prow/nercactv5.pdf

Lets not get in with the anti-everything brigade – they managed to practically cease motorboat traffic on Windermere – and the consequently loss of income to the area.

I think the powerboaters were their own worst enemy,
Which of the lakes was the kid in a sailing dingy was decapitated by a water-ski tow-rope?

The power boats made up a very small percentage of visitors to the area, yet;
+they caused errosion to the lakeshore
+they were effin noisy (the road is nigh on inaudiable form the lake)
+they were inconsidderate (I couldn't coun't the number of times I saw them deliberately swerve into smaller sailing boats to make them capsize/swamp them)
+largely piloted by t****** who'd swear at you if you dared criticise them for being stupid
+ignored the existing speed limits

You wouldn't drive at 40mph through a playground full of kids, yet these idiots thought it was acceptable to do just that, and consequently were made to stick to a 6mph speed limit.

The only problem I can see is motorized-users having to be careful looking out for walkers/riders when descending.

The problem may be that when a cyclist meets a group of, say Kannku 4x4s from Windermere who use the routes to charge people £300 a day for 'greenlaning', winching themselves in and out of deep ruts, if that encounter is seen to enhance or dimminish your day.

maybe it might.

C

and a private individual in the Yorkshire Dales

that's where you live isn't it Chris ?

Yes but it's not me!

copies of the correspondence are here

[/url]http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/row_order_advertising/councils/2009/lake_district_national_park_authority.htm

personally I love a well kitted out 4×4, they can be a thing of ruggedized beauty, love a good rockcrawler too!

One of my dearly held ambitions is to see one of those 4x4s upside down, though perhaps wanting it to be on fire as well is unkind :o)

Glad you enjoyed the pics. They are taken on Walna Scar (Coniston) where a similar application and argument is going on as to if motor rights were created up to 1930. Perhaps your opinion is that their use improves it for cyclists (and others).

C

Perhaps your opinion is that their use improves it for cyclists (and others).

well, the gross sanitisation on Walna Scar in 2002 was done to improve vehicular access, and it ruined the track for biking, but as soon as motorised vehicles started to use it, it began to return to its former state, and is now as good as ever, though perhaps the weather did most of the work…

I was up there Sunday. They're well on with it near the bottom. I wouldn't fancy your chances of getting a 4×4 up at the top with the trail in its present state

The only problem I can see is motorized-users having to be careful looking out for walkers/riders when descending.

Not really given how **** slowly they go down hills whenever I've seen them.