New Forest?

Post Reply
ratherbeintobago
Posts: 974
Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm

New Forest?

Post by ratherbeintobago »

I wonder if CUK has a view on this one:

Verderers of the New Forest apparently trying to ban off road cycling and ebikes, and saying that the existing waymarked paths aren’t PROWs.

https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.uk/ne ... y-9206697/
MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: New Forest?

Post by MikeF »

The verderers want to ban off-track cycling, not off-road cycling. I would agree with that!
The electric bikes should be road legal in my view, but many off roaders treat the countryside as a playground without respect.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
Zulu Eleven
Posts: 235
Joined: 26 Oct 2018, 9:25pm

Re: New Forest?

Post by Zulu Eleven »

MikeF wrote: 16 Jul 2021, 7:15pm The verderers want to ban off-track cycling, not off-road cycling. I would agree with that!
That’s not quite true - the verderers oppose all cycling off their entirely arbitrarily imposed ‘permitted cycle track network’ which extends to about 120km out of something in excess of a 200 mile forestry commission/forestry england road network, plus at least another 100 miles of other historic routes (old roads and bridleways that were not recorded in the new forest due to its crown status)

By way of comparison, nearly all other forestry commission woodlands permit cycle access on all forest roads, while the new forest has unrestricted rights of access on foot and horseback (including dog-walkers) - there is no evidence that cycle users have any greater impact on the protected features of the NF than those permitted activities.

The current differential treatment without evidence of differential impact is a historic anomaly and if introduced today would constitute clear breach of the statutory national park priorities (promotion of recreational use subject to the Sandford principle).
The electric bikes should be road legal in my view, but many off roaders treat the countryside as a playground without respect.
Almost the entirety of the new forest is dedicated (by way of S193 law of property act) for open-air recreational use by those on foot or riding horses, and a wide variety of other activities. It’s *literally* a playground for other users.
MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: New Forest?

Post by MikeF »

We have a daughter who lives in the New Forest so I am quite familiar with some of it and also the reporting of the New Milton Advertiser. A better description of New Forest is a heathland, wooded in parts rather a woodland. Of course the best description is Forest, but that word has lost its original meaning to something else now.

It would appear from the 1925 Property Act That "off road" ie off designated routes, vehicle activity is not allowed.

What happens in other FC woodlands is irrelevant unless subject to the same legislation.

I'm not sure why the verderers want to restrict access for cyclists to just some tracks though.

The problem with National Parks is that they have to promote conflicting interests.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
Zulu Eleven
Posts: 235
Joined: 26 Oct 2018, 9:25pm

Re: New Forest?

Post by Zulu Eleven »

Oh, where to begin…
MikeF wrote: 17 Jul 2021, 3:48pm We have a daughter who lives in the New Forest so I am quite familiar with some of it and also the reporting of the New Milton Advertiser. A better description of New Forest is a heathland, wooded in parts rather a woodland. Of course the best description is Forest, but that word has lost its original meaning to something else now.
Regardless of the definition, the vast majority is owned by the Secretary of State for the environment under the remit of the forestry commissioners
It would appear from the 1925 Property Act That "off road" ie off designated routes, vehicle activity is not allowed.
Whether the definition of ‘vehicle’ encompassed by the 1923 act included bicycles remains a contested issue. The definition of ‘vehicle’ and ‘carriage’ applicable in the highways acts has been found in numerous cases not to extend to other legislation (see, for example, the discussions on toll bridge cases in Coates vs DPP The purpose of the recreational clauses in this legislation was to create access for the public for the means of air and exercise, and the purpose of the restrictions on ‘any carriage, cart, caravan, truck, or other vehicle, or camps or lights any fire thereon’ is documented as being the prevention of gypsy encampments rather than the limitation of otherwise lawful activities practices for air and exercise.
What happens in other FC woodlands is irrelevant unless subject to the same legislation.
And numerous other FC woodlands are subject to the same legislation, but don’t restrict cycle access - because the law has found that the grant of such access over and above S193 remains in the gift of the landowner, a fact which the HoL found crucial in ‘Bakewell land management vs Brandwood and other . The argument in the new forest is whether permission to extend cycle access is a power limited so as to require the consent of the verderers under the Forestry Act 1970, a matter which, amongst other activities which the verderers lay claim to but the forestry commissioners dispute, remains untested, and currently sits under a memorandum of understanding as an issue which neither part agrees on.
I'm not sure why the verderers want to restrict access for cyclists to just some tracks though.
I could tell you the answer in a robust fashion, but I think the simpler answer is to point to the verderers longstanding objection to a whole variety of cycle activities, including road cycling, road sportives, cycle hire and the development of safe commuting routes. Example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-h ... e-30037035
The problem with National Parks is that they have to promote conflicting interests.
No, they don’t. The sandford principle acts to prevent this, but only applies where conflict is irreconcilable and cannot be solved through good management. At the moment there is no evidence that cycling of any form has any significant negative impact on the special features of the new forest (at least over and above the negative impact of other permitted activities) which results in differential treatment without evidenced justification x as I say, this is in breach of the national parks statutory duties to promote enjoyment of the special features via recreational activities (established guidance supports the inclusion of cycling and mountain biking as acceptable forms of recreation within national parks)
Post Reply