Oxford Riders Loose Bridleway thanks to BMW

P

PeterNatt

Well-Known Member
Joined
15 July 2003
Messages
4,720
Location
London and Hertfordshire
s68.photobucket.com
Oxford riders lose bridleway

Horse riders in Oxford have lost a key battle with BMW and Oxfordshire County Council following a ruling by Judge Brian Loosley at Witney Magistrates' Court.

BMW made a request to the council to "stop up" two highways that dissect the plant and a footpath on the grounds they were "unnecessary".

BMW and Oxfordshire County Council claimed that there was no genuine equestrian use, a suitable alternative route for pedestrians would be provided.

For horse-riders in East Oxford and surrounds, this was the shortest, most direct route to the good riding in the City-owned Shotover Country Park.BMW is providing an alternative route, by the ring-road, for cyclists and pedestrians but no alternative provision is proposed for horses.

Oxford Area Bridleways Association (OABA), with the BHS, Ramblers’ Association and several independent witnesses are objecting to this proposed closure which is being made under Section 116 of the 1980 Highways Act. Under this procedure, the judge has to decide whether or not the bridleway is necessary.

The BHS’s Director of Access, Mark Weston, has been representing the objectors’ case in court, alongside the Ramblers’ Association’s solicitor. Oxfordshire County Council, supporting BMW’s application, was the first to give evidence. It was interesting to note that their Countryside Service Dept did not take the stand to provide the Rights of Way information; this was given by an independent consultant Robin Carr (who has often advised the BHS on such matters). The Countryside Service had commented previously that they felt the bridleway was indeed necessary.

To rub salt into the wounds both the BHS and Ramblers Association have been ordered to pay costs totalling nearly £50,000.

The result is extremely disappointing and suggests the right to paths and bridleways can be undermined by corporations and private individuals with money.
 
Copy of the letter written to BMW by Graham Corry the Chief Executive of the BHS.

Dr. - Ing. Norbert Reithofer
BMW Group
Petuelring 130
D-80788 Munich
Germany


Fax: +49 89-3 82-2 44 18

Dear Dr. Reithofer,

Although no-one ever celebrates losing a case in court, I will tell you that my predominant emotion is one of bewilderment that BMW (Oxford) should have been so cavalier in setting itself not just against local horse riders, but against the leading UK horse charity.

I am sure you will have been kept informed of the case but, as a reminder, the matter may be summarised as follows:

• A right of way for horses (and, of course, pedestrians) has existed for 2,000 years across land in Oxford which is now in the ownership of BMW;

• BMW wished to profit from development opportunities on the site (which is a perfectly reasonable thing for any commercial undertaking to do);

• The continued existence of the right of way would have reduced the value to BMW of the site;

• BMW applied to the local authority for the right of way to be extinguished;

• The British Horse Society, which is a charity, did not wish the bridleway to be lost to local riders and, as allowed for by law, lodged a formal objection (which, in turn, is a perfectly reasonable thing for a horse charity to do). We would not have objected had BMW agreed to replace the lost bridleway with an alternative. However, BMW agreed to provide an alternative route only for pedestrians and cyclists;

• BMW agreed to put its almost limitless financial resources behind the local authority if it took the matter to court. Supported by this assurance that it had nothing to lose, the local authority agreed;

• The Court approved BMW’s application to extinguish the right of way. The BHS recognises the authority of the Court to come to the conclusion it did.

• Costs of £30,000 were awarded against the charity for doing what its charitable objects provide as one of its principal purposes for existing - promoting and protecting rights of way.

I can only speculate why BMW set its mind so resolutely against making the alternative route for the riders whose route across the site had been taken away from them. And I can only speculate as to why BMW should so willingly have sought to alienate the equestrian community in the UK by contributing to the year on year decline in equestrian rights of way in the UK.

You should understand that it is not just the riders in Oxford who will be appalled at BMW’s attitude, nor the 105,000 members of The British Horse Society but the 4,200,000 riders in the UK who will associate BMW with the anti-horse element. Given that a significant proportion of this 4.2 million will be your customers - or your potential customers - this is a cunning marketing ploy which I cannot pretend to fathom.

As it is, we will now have to launch a national fighting fund, which we will publicly dedicate to BMW’s honour, to recoup the £30,000. Whereas this sum may be small change to you, it represents a huge sum to an equine charity. Moreover, I suspect you would agree that it is hardly a fair burden, given that we were simply arguing in good faith a point of public interest. Or maybe BMW believes that David should never have the temerity to argue with Goliath?

Perhaps BMW UK would like to make the first contribution to our fighting fund.


Yours sincerely,




Graham M Cory
Chief Executive
mark
 
This smacks of back handers to me, and as I have a car with a BMW engine, perhaps in future I may change manufacturers to show my disapproval of their actions.
I'll be emailing them to tell them that I think..perhaps others should do the same..
 
Interesting letter.

I would love to know the honest number of riders who used this bridlepath on a regular basis as the area is rather built up. For those that do not know, the path is a tarmac track, between high walls of chain link fencing, that is used predominantly by pedestrians. Whilst I hate seeing our bridlepaths taken away from us, especially in this manner, I would like to know the true number of riders who are going to be losing out on this ruling.
 
BMW bridleway closure - Chief Executive's letter to Oxford MP

Andrew Smith MP
21 Templars Square
Cowley
Oxford
OX4 3UZ


17 October 2007



To what extent do you believe that your championing of your constituents’ cause - be that cause never so worthy - would be tempered if you feared you would incur a personal financial penalty for so doing?

This is no abstract philosophical point. It is a question, the equivalent of which faces The British Horse Society, the UK’s foremost equestrian charity. Let me explain.

The Society and BMW came into conflict on a certain issue. What that issue was is, for the purposes of this letter, neither here nor there. Nor is it germane that, when the case was argued in court, the judge sided with BMW: we accept the authority of the Court.

The point is that, in standing up for the interests of equestrians in your constituency, as the law allows and as our charitable objects empower us, we find ourselves with a financial penalty of £30,000 - not because our case was frivolous, or poorly argued, or an abuse of process or in any other way of questionable merit - but simply because we took the simple step of demurring.

Here are the salient points:

• A right of way for horses and pedestrians has existed for 2,000 years across land in Oxford which is now in the ownership of BMW;

• BMW wished to profit from development opportunities on the site, which is a perfectly reasonable thing for any commercial undertaking to do, but the continued existence of the right of way would have reduced the value to BMW of the site;

• BMW applied to the local authority for the right of way to be extinguished;

• The British Horse Society, which is a charity, did not wish the bridleway to be lost to local riders and, as allowed for by Statute, lodged a formal objection (which, in turn, is a perfectly reasonable thing for a horse charity to do). We would not have objected had BMW agreed to replace the lost bridleway with a suitable alternative. However, BMW agreed to provide an alternative route only for pedestrians and cyclists;

• BMW agreed to put its almost limitless financial resources behind the local authority if it took the matter to court. Supported by this assurance that it had nothing to lose, the local authority agreed;

• The Court approved BMW’s application to extinguish the right of way. The BHS recognises the authority of the Court to come to the conclusion it did.

• Costs of £30,000 were awarded against the charity (and a slightly lesser amount against the Ramblers Association) for doing what our charitable objects provide as one of our principal purposes for existing ¾ promoting and protecting rights of way.

At what point, in your judgement, did the BHS err?

Did our error lie in our being a temerarious David aggravating a righteous Goliath? Did it lie in being (at least in the Judge’s view) simply wrong in law? Did it lie in taking up the cause of riders who must now traverse two dangerous roads if they wish to transit from the bridleway on the Blackbird Lees estate to the bridleway to the north of the BMW plant which leads into Shotover Park and Brasenose Wood?

If, upon reflection, you believe that we were simply arguing a justifiable cause on behalf of those whose individual voices were not strong enough to be heard, what should the reasonable person make of the £30,000 penalty imposed on a charity?

Given that BMW’s munificent gesture to the County Council assured them that they would be indemnified against any costs, do you not see some moral force in the argument that the Council should not press the BHS for costs but should invite BMW to meet the bill? After all, it represents a tiny fraction of the financial benefit which BMW will derive from denying access to the riders in your constituency.

A final thought. This Government introduced the Discovering Lost Ways project in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. In seven years, the number of lost bridleways added to the Definitive Map is precisely zero. However, your constituency has the rather dubious distinction of making this statistic - which is already rather embarrassing for the Government - even worse by making an adjustment of minus one to the definitive map!

I am copying this to Keith Mitchell and Joanna Simons of Oxfordshire County Council, who may wish to comment.





Graham M Cory
Chief Executive - British Horse Society
 
I would suggest that one way of making BMW re-consider their stand on this issue would be for every BMW owning horse rider to take a photo of their horse next to their BMW and send it with an accompanying letter to the manager of their local BMW franchised garage. If this happened on a massive scale accross the country then BMW would appreciate the bad publicity that this issue is causing them and the subsequent loss in future potential sales of their cars in Great Britain.
 
I don't believe that the numbers of riders using this particular access route is particularly relevant, compared to the way in which this application has gone through.

The problem is, that cases like this set precedents, and are used as examples when other similar cases are being considered.

If it is allowed to go through this time, then it leaves the door wide open for other big businesses / land owners to follow suit.
 
Dubble. What you have said is absolutely correct and this is why it is essential that we as horse riders get this decision reversed and the Ramblers Association and BHS costs also declared void. This entire matter is a disgrace and I would hope that every horse rider in the country supports the campaign to achieve a fair conclusion to this matter. BMW and Oxfordshire County Council need to be made ashamed of themselves.
 
In case anyone wasn't aware, there are two really good ways in which
people can show their support for bridleways at the moment, and all
from sitting in front of their emails!

Support your bridleways! - The Petition

We're now well on the way to having 3,000 signatures on the petition
to the Prime Minister to remember horses when the Government is
proposing legislation. With expected Bills on coastal access and
forestry soon, it's important that everyone who values their off road
routes signs up. It's really easy to do, and only takes a few key
strokes.

Please visit http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Equestrianaccess/ to sign up!

Support your bridleways - the Access Fighting Fund

The British Horse Society has established an Access Fighting Fund to
pay for action in court to defend riders' and carriage drivers'
rights. Full details can be read on the linked page below, and
there's a button to make an on line donation! If every rider in
Britain gave just a pound, we'd have over 4 million - but as that's
unlikely to happen, please ask anyone you know who rides to make a
donation of any amount.

http://www.justgiving.com/AccessFightingFund
 
The problem with this story is that if you weren't there (ie, in Court or at least at some of the meetings that preceded it) you will never have the full story. It is true that as a bridleway, this particular right of way was very lightly used by equestrian traffic - it has probably seen more use in the last 6 months in the interests of PR than in the preceding 6 years. It is also true to say that the track as it stands is not the safest or most desirable route for horses, running through the centre of a car manufacturing plant. An alternative for walkers and cyclists was proposed to run adjacent to the Oxford bypass, and it was intimated that there would be an implied permission for horses to also be able to use this - it is a question of opinion as to whether many of us would actually want to ride next to a busy duel carriageway.

Personally I think it was inevitable that business would win over a bridleway, given that BMW is such a massive employer in the Oxford/Cowley area - but it is a huge shame that the BHS are having to bear some of the cost of the challenge.

Do BMW sponsor any equestrian events? Presumably not, after this.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Personally I think it was inevitable that business would win over a bridleway, given that BMW is such a massive employer in the Oxford/Cowley area - but it is a huge shame that the BHS are having to bear some of the cost of the challenge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.
 
I am afraid that I do not have an E-mail address but you could write or fax to the address which is in my third post from the top of this.

The intention is probably to sell the site for residential housing which is why they wanted the bridleway removed as it makes the site very much more valuable without a public right of way through it. It could increase the site by as much as 50% without it there and on a site that is worth in excess of £1,000,000 an acre that is a lot of money.

I recently negotiated with a large organisation who wanted a bridleway removed from the middle of their site in Stevenage Hertfordshire but I managed to get it re-routed and the orgnisation concerned also agreed to erect protective post and rail fencing and proper road crossiing points as well. A company as large as BMW could have easily re-routed the bridleway around the perimeter of their site but they just did not want one on the site at all.
 
How come they can get it moved-your bog standard farmer/horse owner with a right of way running through their land, can't?
 
I would be very surprised if it was anybody's intention to convert this land to housing, there has been massive spending on upgrading the site for car production in recent years and it is surrounded by industrial areas. In fact a public right of way would be far less of an issue on a housing estate than on the land in its current use. BMW have buildings all the way out to the boundary of the premises on at least one side, and the perimeter road is kept clear for emergency access on site (as previously mentioned it is an industrial site and therefore less than ideal for horses) so there actually wasn't a straightforward alternative without significant investment.

The fight was taken up by the BHS to support the principle that bridleways should be preserved where ever possible, not necessarily because this bridleway represented any kind of ideal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top