Right of vehicular access over a bridleway

[scaryteacher]

Relative is selling their house, having had a licence from their county council for the last 20 years to access their property via a bridleway. Said county council has now said they won't grant a new licence to the purchasers and are trying to stiff my relative for £37.5k plus legal fees for a permanent grant of access.

I think NERCA Appendix 1 section 34 2a applies, and that as vehicular access has belonging for 40 years, and my relative has the paperwork to prove it, the County Council are changing their arm here.

I know he needs specialist advice; any recommendations?

That should say, ' vehicular access has been happening' and that the Council is chancing their arm. Duh, was up til silly o'clock googling as this problem landed in my email at 0100 this morning.

The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act does not have appendices. It has schedules. None of the schedules has 34 paragraphs and section 34 of the Act is about co-ordinated functions of national or international significance. I suspect you are referring to some form of guidance rather than the Act itself. Without knowing what document you are referring to it is difficult to comment. However, section 67 of the Act extinguished existing public rights of way for mechanically propelled vehicles over bridleways. Subsection 2a prevents such rights of way being extinguished if the main lawful use by the public was for mechanically propelled vehicles for the previous 5 years. I imagine that is what you are talking about.

Assuming I am correct, having a licence allowing you to drive vehicles over a particular bridleway does not establish a public right of way. If there was a public right of way anyone would be able to drive over this bridleway and no licence would be required. That was not the situation here. Even if there was a public right of way for vehicles at the time the Act came into force in 2005 (which it doesn't sound like there was), you would have to show that the main lawful use by the public was for mechanically propelled vehicles. If most people walk or ride along the bridlepath the attempt fails.

I would not claim to be an expert in this area. He needs proper advice but, based on my reading of the legislation, I think the council is within its rights.

Sorry, this was dumped on me at 0100 this morning, and I was up til 0330 googling trying to find answers for my relative.

The website I was looking at is this: www.gleam-uk.org/guidance/enforcement-of-driving-on-public-rights-of-way-post-the-nerc-act-2006/
and the Appendix at the bottom. It must refer to the RTA s34.

I think my relative needs to establish definitively who owns the track (shown on the OS map as a track which then leads to a bridleway I think), then he needs to contact local councillors for help. Given that there will be a new housing development happening the other side of the main road, and a bypass, and indications are that the track and bridleway will be rerouted to give access to the new secondary school being built, it seems daft to be held to ransom, when the access may have to change anyway.

The Council have issued two licences in the past 40 years for this, and they are claiming it is an onerous administrative burden to carry on. Do they really have the right to deny access to a property when they have granted it in the past, and allowed planning permission for a garage which required access over the track to get to?

Yes, the appendix shows section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Subsection 2A was inserted by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act section 70. Your relative has an interest due to having a licence. That licence relates to your relative, not the property. When he sells the property the new owner will not have a licence and hence will not be able to drive vehicles along the bridleway.

As for the rest, your relative needs proper advice.

A lisence is a personal right as opposed to a right that is part and parcel of the land. The new owner will need their own lisence.

This is all complicated by the fact that the website for the new development shows that the bridlepath will be rerouted slightly to be closer to my relative's property. I'd not be inclined to pay for anything if it could then be altered by the developers and the County Council.