Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, I shall limit my remarks to Part 6 of the Bill, which deals with the issue of rights of way. I certainly support the overall thrust of that part—as have all noble Lords who have spoken on the subject—and the way in which the Bill addresses the abuse of quiet rural unmade roads and tracks by motor vehicles, motor cycles and so forth. There is certainly a problem, and I agree that it needs to be addressed. But as ever with legislation, the law of unintended consequences has struck and struck hard. The consequence of changes proposed in Section 47 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act and in Part 6 of this Bill is that it will become an offence to drive to properties adjacent to restricted byways unless property owners have either acquired a prescriptive right to do so or have the benefit of a private right to drive over the restricted byway. I declare an interest in that my family owns a property in exactly that situation and have accessed the property for getting on for half a century without any objection. Indeed, the ownership of the track over which the property is accessed is lost in the mists of time. In the past, it was quite common for the sales of properties along RUPPs, which will soon be restricted byways, to be concluded notwithstanding the lack of either an express right of way over the RUPP or the existence of a prescriptive right of way, because it was not then an offence to drive over those roads. However, when the law changes such properties may be difficult to sell—and there have been some recent examples of that. The problem is of some scale. In the district of Wokingham, in Berkshire, alone, the council estimates that there is £100 million-worth of property that could be so affected. That may say something about property values in Wokingham, of course, but if one extrapolates around the country one can say that perhaps some billions of pounds—or at least £1 billion—is affected. It is a serious, if narrow, problem. I understand that there are similar problems across the country; for example, in Hampshire and Oxfordshire, with more than 300 RUPPs behind them. That was clearly not the intention behind either the provisions in this Bill or the provisions in the CROW Act, and I understand that the Government are sympathetic to the case. When the CROW Act was drafted, Defra officials were clearly not aware of the issue. I repeat that I support the overall objective behind this part of the legislation, but there is a serious problem here. I understand that the Government are sympathetic to the issue and that a commitment was made in another place that they would introduce an amendment of their own in this House, in response to the one tabled by my right honourable friend the Member for Bracknell. If the issue is not addressed, it would be a substantial injustice and would compound the rush to convert or reregister RUPPs as byways open to all traffic—so-called BOATs. That is not what any of us who have spoken in today’s debate would want, but I suspect that is what will happen if it is the only alternative for people to guarantee access to their properties. But I hope that the Minister introduces an amendment and look forward to seeing it in due course.