Meeting documents

To consider a report by the Service Director for Environment, Infrastructure and Economy.

The Committee considered a report by the Service Director Environment, Infrastructure and Economy on the determination of an application to modify the Definitive Map and Statement of Rights of Way to upgrade Bridleway 14, Beaminster to record it as a Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT) following a recent Supreme Court ruling. It was confirmed that the Committee was being asked to revisit a decision to refuse five applications for BOATs taken on 7 October 2010, following a Judicial Review and subsequent Supreme Court ruling.

Officers confirmed that in response to an application by the Friends of Dorset Rights of Way – subsequently adopted by the Trail Riders Fellowship - an investigation was carried out to upgrade to a byway open to all traffic the route between points A, B, C, D and E on Drawing 18/12 to the report. The Committee were now being asked to consider the evidence relating to the status of the claimed route. The Committee also needed to determine whether the applications had been made in accordance with the statutory requirements in order to determine whether rights for mechanically propelled vehicles had been extinguished.

With the aid of a visual presentation, and in taking into account the provisions of the Update Sheet made available to members prior to the meeting and appended to these minutes, the basis for the application was explained and what it entailed. Photographs and plans were shown to the Committee by way of illustration. This showed the claimed route, in its current condition and the points between which it ran; a track between hedges and fences,  surfaced partly with tarmac and partly with stone.

The documentary evidence contained in the report was referred to in detail and how this was applied in the officer’s reasoning for coming to the recommendation they had. The weight to be given to the documentary evidence was explained. Officers confirmed that there was no user evidence. The Committee’s attention was drawn to what they were being asked to take into consideration in coming to their decision.

Officers confirmed that, in terms of documentary evidence, evidence provided by way of a series of maps and also documents resulting from the Finance Act 1910 had been analysed to determine how the route had been depicted over time but these had proven to be inconclusive in terms of providing sufficient evidence to show that historic vehicular rights existed.

Furthermore, the Beaminster lnclosure Award of 1809 - which would have otherwise been considered to be the most significant indication of the status of a route – did not demonstrate that the nearby awarded public carriageway continued north-eastwards over the length of the claimed byway, although it was noted that the words 'To Meerhay' were written at the point where this awarded road terminated at the boundary of the land shown on the lnclosure map.

Moreover, officers confirmed that there was seen to be nothing in the process of the drawing-up of the Definitive Map to suggest that the claimed byway was intended for inclusion at a higher status than that of bridleway. Therefore, on balance, officers considered that the available documentary evidence was insufficient to show that the claimed route carried public vehicular rights. Furthermore, no user evidence had been submitted in support of the application for a modification order.

In terms of the consultation exercise, an objection had been received from the Green Lanes Protection Group, and from the landowner's solicitor, who were of the view that the application was not made in accordance with the necessary provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The grounds for this was set out in the Committee report. However, officers' view was that the application had been made in accordance with the necessary requirements of section 53 and Schedule 14. Other objections – including from landowners - of particular relevance referred to the use of the way for purposes of gaining access to premises, rather than by the public with motor vehicles, with the report acknowledging this. Questions had also been raised about the landowner's intention and capacity to dedicate the way as a vehicular highway.

Given their consideration and analysis of the documentary evidence and given that no user evidence had been submitted, officers had come to their recommendation that the application should be refused. 

The Committee heard from those wishing to address the Committee. Phillipa Clunes had lived at her property for the last 12 years. She was of the view that there was no valid reason for the route being dedicated as a BOAT given that its only evidence of use was by those vehicles required access to the farm and residential properties along the route. She knew of one or two cars which were lost driving along the route, but they were turned back.  She had never seen motorcycles using the route.

 Chris Wiles (TRF) strongly advocated the upgrade of the route to a BOAT given what the documentary evidence available showed. He was confident that the evidence showed that the route should be recorded as a BOAT given the activities which had taken place and particularly from the historic documentary evidence which, in his opinion, had identified such use.

The Committee were then provided with the opportunity to ask questions of the

officer’s presentation and did not require any points to be clarified.

In assessing the evidence presented by officers, taking into account the detail of the application in the report and hearing what those making submissions had said, the Committee concluded that the documentary evidence, together with the absence of user evidence was considered to be, on balance, insufficient to raise an inference of a BOAT.

On that basis - and on being put to the vote - the Committee agreed that the application should be refused, on the basis of the recommendation contained in the officer’s report.