LANING LIFE

by Lauren Eaton

Read about green laning as seen through Lauren ‘Sunshine’ Eaton's windscreen at The Green Lane Association, and find out what’s hot, or not, in the laning world each month. Enjoy!

If I mention the word policy, most people switch off. People think policy is boring, dry, even dictatorial. But policy isn't about telling people what to do, it tells people what we do, how we do it, and often why.

All members get access to every policy, we send it out to answer questions that come through official channels (Facebook drama does not apply), there is nothing secretive about it, no 'cult initiation ceremony' to go through to get access. So in the interest of transparency, this month we're going to look at our 'Negotiating Lane Cases' policy word for word.

There is no such thing as a simple project. Many stakeholders may be involved from the local council, Natural England or Natural Resources Wales, landowners, police, reps, and many others depending on what the physical work entails, and the legal, social, environmental, and financial elements that invariably must be addressed by all parties too.

So yes we do have a project policy, but we are not in control of the whole process. What may happen isn't always what we would like to see happen. So, let's walk through each step of our policy and lay the process bare for all to see.

This is fairly self-explanatory. We identify where our rights are at risk, a proposed Traffic Regulation Order for example, and step in to attempt to protect access for ALL. This includes 4x4s, motorcycles, members, and non-members 'where possible', because sadly it isn’t always possible! More on that later…

Another standard clause. While closure is often seen as the go-to 'solution' we know that is not acceptable, and is also often not a solution, at best it only moves the problem elsewhere.

If a lane is under threat due to illegal driving, closing a lane won’t stop the culprits continuing. If these mud-forbrains types cared about breaking the law they wouldn’t have driven off-piste in the first place, so the likelihood they will stop, because the lane they drove off onto private land is no longer legally accessible, is highly unlikely.

We do not believe that public rights should be reduced because a tiny minority break the law, if we did that in all aspects of life we’d have to ban most daily activities, and driving (both on and off tarmac) full stop!

Solutions that actually work, or have the potential to work, without impacting everyone’s rights are many and varied. So varied, and also often quite specific depending on the unique circumstances of a specific project, local authority, and other considerations, that we can’t detail them in their entirety in a policy. But we do have numerous historic cases that can be used both as guides and examples of what has worked in the past. We also have numerous resources, and a very healthy fighting fund to help us.

Another way of saying that we work to preserve access for all motorised users irrespective of what they drive or ride 'where practicably possible'.

Some lanes simply are not wide enough for a 4x4, this would obviously mean that we would then have to fight for the rights of other smaller motorised vehicles in some cases, which brings us on to...

We of course would only support width restrictions or motorcycle only rights if this was legitimately the only possible outcome. If, through cut backs, clearances, or other maintenance work, lanes could accommodate a 4x4 then we will of course make every attempt to ensure that access for all is fought for, and that remedial works take place to reinstate the full width of a carriageway where possible.

In basic terms - we want to avoid permit only access wherever possible. If we didn’t we’d be breaching point 1. It doesn’t mean we will always be successful, after all it is the local authority who has the final say, but we will make every attempt to negotiate access for all.

PSPOs are a complex entity. On the surface they sound great because they allow for a more flexible approach to management than Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) do. They’re also not permanent (although can be extended) and can be reviewed and changed during their term unlike permanent TROs.

But, because they can be reviewed and amended this can mean that local authorities can change things after we’ve negotiated terms, and depending on the motives of the authority this can be risky. In other cases they may be an appropriate solution, or at least one where motorised users are represented throughout the review process, and in these cases there is far less risk involved.

Generally speaking, we would much prefer to see PSPOs used to manage the land adjacent to a lane, for example during off-piste cases. This also allows for further prosecution if people do not behave themselves; illegal drivers can be served under Section 59 of the Highways Act, and for breach of the PSPO. Win-win, or lose-lose depending on how you look at it.

When things get really tricky sometimes we face an ultimatum: closure or restricted access. There are no further negotiations to enter into, and the local authority gives us a black and white choice, option 1: some people can drive the lane, or option 2: no one at all can drive the lane ever again. In these cases, while we would very much prefer not to, option 1: restricted access to some, is the best outcome from a less than ideal situation. Then things can get even trickier…

At this point in the process GLASS will have spent some serious money and time fighting the case, every option will have been exhausted. We may have been joined in the battle by other organisations, others may have failed to represent themselves.

In all cases where other organisations are involved we will have been negotiating together, and liaising with each other, while spending our members’ money to help us to do so. Therefore, at the point where the ultimatum changes to 'members only or closure', we simply have to accept the members only path or lose all rights completely. This luckily is yet to happen though, but we have come close!

We cannot represent those who have not contributed, this would mean not only spending our time and our members’ money on those who have not assisted at all throughout the process, but it would also mean any negotiations on our part would directly impact other organisations and their members. That just isn’t acceptable, neither for us to believe we have that right, and not acceptable for the members of other organisations either - they joined up because they believed their organisation would represent their views, uphold their organisation’s policy and rules, and spend their money fighting for them, so we cannot step in without their consent and input simply because they failed to represent themselves.

Anyone who is not a member of an organisation may well feel left out at this point, but where there is no alternative - lose all rights or only some - we must agree to losing some rather than all. Other people have paid a premium to protect their rights through an opportunity to join organisations that anyone could have taken advantage of, and this must be respected.

It should not be forgotten that those who are not members benefit all the time from those who pay into active organisations.

In the VAST majority of cases we only reach points 1-5 and in every case ALL laners and trail riders benefit from closures being fought against, maintenance work being carried out, reps improving relationships with stakeholders, and more.

That benefit is only made possible because others pay into the organisations who fight for our rights, without that point I would have never begun and every risk to laning would have resulted in another lane lost.

Invariably something will get some negative attention online during the course of a month, although more often than not the negativity is not deserved. I’m not on many Facebook groups, and don’t have the time or inclination to keep up with many of those I am on, so I thought I’d include a new section to address the gripes that get passed on to me.

The latest thing to have grabbed the attention of the serial complainers is an off-piste activity project in Essex. To summarise: Some illegal motorised users have been veering off the legal route and into adjacent privately owned woodland causing a god-awful mess. The landowner runs a community interest company called Let’s Get Out C.I.C.

Their remit is to provide outdoor education, they are an official Duke of Edinburgh’s Award Scheme provider, and they also sponsor those whose financial position would normally prevent them from accessing outdoor activities.

Because the company is a community interest, they don’t have vast amounts of cash to splash on securing the byway and fixing the damage in the woodland, so they started a crowdfunding campaign to raise the funds www.crowdfunder. co.uk/revive-the-woods.

Our local Rep, Rob Tongue, got in contact to see how we could help, as we would do in any case where there has been illegal activity and criminal damage on and around a lane. Any illegal activity and damage risks our rights being reduced or extinguished, we simply cannot ignore it.

Phase one of the project focuses on securing the byway and the woodland from illegal activity such as off-piste driving and trespass. We are funding that phase and in doing so will benefit far more than the average offpiste solution we get involved in.

Every item (gate, fence section, etc) GLASS money funds will have our signage on it, information boards will be placed around the site, our literature will be made available to all who use the area, and anyone who attends the woodland outdoor education facility will now have access to information about what green laning is, and shown that we’re not all irresponsible countryside wreckers!

We will also have the opportunity to meet with other outdoor educators at events held at the venue, and the lane is no longer under threat of being singled out for restriction/ closure due to the nuisances who have been trashing the place.

This is EXACTLY what GLASS is all about, what we do month in and out, and what people expect of us - fixing/ protecting lanes and our rights to drive them, and stopping those who put that at risk (off-piste drivers), while fostering positive relationships with local landowners and residents.

Understandably this comes at a cost, and the money GLASS has invested here is substantial, £10,000. Although that seems a large sum, it is a drop in the ocean compared to several cases we are fighting through the courts to preserve our rights. What’s more, cases like this bring the local community on our side. In the this case the previously anti-4x4 landowners, users, and local residents now love us and want us involved in everything!

I personally don’t understand the negative comments on the internet. These people come across as very sad and bitter when they attack worthy projects that benefit us all. I guess some people are clearly determined to attack GLASS whatever we do. If only they put as much energy into saving the lanes, then we would have a much stronger community to fight off closures. Sadly a minority seem determined to wreck the only 4x4 focused organisation fighting to keep the lanes they profess to love so much open!

That’s almost all from me folks…just a quick announcement that we have changed our media/comms setup because we are so unbelievably busy!

We now have a new Social Media Officer in addition to the existing media team, so I will no longer be involved online. I will continue to manage the astronomical and ever-growing workload that comes with the Comms role though!

As always if you have any questions or topics you’d like me to discuss, get in touch at lauren.eaton@glass-uk.org Happy laning! Lauren x