(...Previous)

There has been much attention focused on the reclassification of roads used as public paths (RUPP's) as a result of the Year 2000 Reclassification Target and of Section 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which requires them to be reclassified as either BOAT, Bridleway or Footpath.  Problems have arisen, mostly due to the numbers of appeals against decisions and the long processes. 
Under Section 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 RUPP's have to be reclassified as BOAT's if vehicular rights are shown to have ever existed.  Most evidence showing vehicular rights are historical in that horse and carts used the routes.  Vehicle users often have to use records like enclosure awards from the 18^th and 19^th century and early county maps to prove vehicular rights exist. Many members of public and interest groups disagree with this, as they say modern vehicles and the damage they can cause bear no resemblance to horses and carts.  Some call for the reintroduction of a test of suitability on RUPP's based on the ability of a particular route to sustain vehicular use, a method which the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act abandoned because it was subjective and open to abuse by local authorities.  Besides which, the state of a RUPP in terms of surface damage and condition has no relation to the decision as the right of way would have to be repaired to satisfactory standards by the local Highway Authority. 
    A recent High Court land access case on February 16 1998 saw the law regarding RUPP reclassification being clarified.  Now if 4WD motor vehicle users need to rely on post 1930 motoring evidence to prove that the RUPP's being reclassified have motor vehicle rights, then it must be validated by some pre 1930 evidence of use, for example horses and carts.  Whilst 4WD vehicle users will still be able to get RUPP's reclassified as BOAT's the task will be harder.  Tim Stevens, Development Officer for LARA who was present at the court case stated,
          "The serious implication for us is that we have been ripped-off.  We thought that delay did not present a problem, and we have gone along with counties who had more important things to do than RUPP reclassifications (such as clearing obstructions).  We thought that although our old witnesses were dying off, we had new ones to take their place.  Now we find that the new only counts if we still have the old.  (Stevens, 1998)
      Problems may occur as those opposed to 4WD vehicles try to appeal against recent reclassifications that resulted in byway status.  Dr Alan Woods of the Country Landowners' Association (CLA) is quoted as advising against such action as it would waste both time and money.  (Land Rover World, May 1998, p23).

      Many disputes between vehicle owners and other user groups such as walkers or horse riders, and landowners arise because one or the other claims that the other party has no "right" to be there using a particular right of way.  Local Authorities must keep records of all rights of way that they are responsible for.  They must provide and make available for public use definitive statements which give information such as a right of way's location, length and other information for example gates or path width.  Information may also be held on definitive maps an example of which is shown.

(Continued...)