NT03 - natural track query

[Feldspar]

Every year I debate what to do about natural tracks. Had an RPA inspection last year and they have put in some natural tracks and removed others without consistent logic.

If you have a naturally surfaced track which runs through the parcel which you also use to access the parcel but also other parcels, what should it be coded as?

I found this guidance from the TFA: http://www.tfa.org.uk/bps-2016-natural-surface-tracks/.

The BPS land use codes is ambiguous: "This code should only be used for a natural, unsurfaced track or path which is not used as part of the agricultural activity carried out on the land parcel or is part of a transport network entering and exiting the land parcel.

Natural paths and tracks which are used as part of the agricultural activity carried out on the land parcel and are not part of a transport network entering and exiting the land parcel should be coded using the land use code for the main land use of the parcel."

What is a "transport network"?

 

[Steevo]

Sorry, I can't help with your query at all. I did however have a similar issue with MT BPS codes. One track was marked at MT01 - Metalled Track Permissive Access. Nowhere in any 2018 guidance could I find the "permissive access bit". MT02 code showed in an old land use code booklet as "Metalled Track - No Permissive Access" but that option has been removed.

Does seem a bit of a mess.

 

[Steevo]

I assume the "transport network" is proper roads with white lines, cats eyes etc. i.e. a public road.

MT03 for example is "A metalled or surfaced way that is clearly marked, permanent and forms part of a wider road network with, for example, road markings, road names or road numbers.".

 

[Feldspar]

Sorry, I can't help with your query at all. I did however have a similar issue with MT BPS codes. One track was marked at MT01 - Metalled Track Permissive Access. Nowhere in any 2018 guidance could I find the "permissive access bit". MT02 code showed in an old land use code booklet as "Metalled Track - No Permissive Access" but that option has been removed.

Does seem a bit of a mess.

I've just used MT01 for that.

 

[Feldspar]

I assume the "transport network" is proper roads with white lines, cats eyes etc. i.e. a public road.

MT03 for example is "Metalled or surfaced way that is clearly marked and permanent and forms part of a wider road network infrastructure".

That's what I think I'm going to assume. Will just mean an increase to my annual stack of RLE1 forms that I send them.

 

[Steevo]

I've just used MT01 for that.

I was tempted to.......then wondered whether to swap it to HS01.

 

[Feldspar]

I was tempted to.......then wondered whether to swap it to HS01.

Had an inspection last year and the RPA have coded it as MT01.

 

[Princess Pooper]

Every year I debate what to do about natural tracks. Had an RPA inspection last year and they have put in some natural tracks and removed others without consistent logic.

If you have a naturally surfaced track which runs through the parcel which you also use to access the parcel but also other parcels, what should it be coded as?

I found this guidance from the TFA: http://www.tfa.org.uk/bps-2016-natural-surface-tracks/.

The BPS land use codes is ambiguous: "This code should only be used for a natural, unsurfaced track or path which is not used as part of the agricultural activity carried out on the land parcel or is part of a transport network entering and exiting the land parcel.

Natural paths and tracks which are used as part of the agricultural activity carried out on the land parcel and are not part of a transport network entering and exiting the land parcel should be coded using the land use code for the main land use of the parcel."

What is a "transport network"?

We have a 'route' ie an area of compacted grassland which is where we enter a grassland field from the public road at gate A, drive in straight line through it and exit at gate B into the next field. Depending on the time year and the weather conditions, sometimes it is a bit rutted, but most of the time there is short grass on almost all of the wheelings. When it gets to gate B it goes straight through the next grass field to a further one, in exactly the same fashion. This is coded as a natural track accessing the transport network as you have described, on my understanding of it, as it goes through several fields.

 

[Feldspar]

We have a 'route' ie an area of compacted grassland which is where we enter a grassland field at gate A, drive in straight line through it and exit at gate B into the next field. Depending on the time year and the weather conditions, sometimes it is a bit rutted, but most of the time there is short grass on almost all of the wheelings. When it gets to gate B it goes straight through the next grass field to a further one, in exactly the same fashion. This is coded as a natural track accessing the transport network as you have described, on my understanding of it, as it goes through several fields.

They need to be more precise with their definitions (not that you need me to tell you this). This (http://www.tfa.org.uk/bps-2016-natural-surface-tracks/) suggests that should be coded as the main land use of the parcel. Have you queried it with the RPA?

 

[Princess Pooper]

Sorry, I can't help with your query at all. I did however have a similar issue with MT BPS codes. One track was marked at MT01 - Metalled Track Permissive Access. Nowhere in any 2018 guidance could I find the "permissive access bit". MT02 code showed in an old land use code booklet as "Metalled Track - No Permissive Access" but that option has been removed.

Does seem a bit of a mess.

yes, we had one pop up as that as well! It's a concrete sleeper cow track that finishes 2/3 of a way up a field so why one would allow permissive access that went 'nowhere' I'm not sure! I changed it to hard standing for want of a better option, they have all the concrete sleeper standings for the water troughs on the same track as hard standing. This lot just shows what a complete and utter shambles BPS is the fact that some people are agonising over the minutiae of codes

 

[Steevo]

yes, we had one pop up as that as well! It's a concrete sleeper cow track that finishes 2/3 of a way up a field so why one would allow permissive access that went 'nowhere' I'm not sure! I changed it to hard standing for want of a better option, they have all the concrete sleeper standings for the water troughs on the same track as hard standing. This lot just shows what a complete and utter shambles BPS is the fact that some people are agonising over the minutiae of codes

Expecially when those codes make no difference to the end outcome. It's either "eligible" or "ineligible" at the end of the day. It's strange they are so specific about codes. Even to the point of different codes for river/stream greater than 4m wide, or less than 4m wide. Most bizarre.

 

[Feldspar]

Expecially when those codes make no difference to the end outcome. It's either "eligible" or "ineligible" at the end of the day. It's strange they are so specific about codes. Even to the point of different codes for river/stream greater than 4m wide, or less than 4m wide. Most bizarre.

NT03 is important because it turns eligible area into ineligible.

 

[Sid]

I have cow tracks that have grass growing on them, they are made from natural stone but now have a covering of grass.....in out in out?

 

[Feldspar]

I have cow tracks that have grass growing on them, they are made from natural stone but now have a covering of grass.....in out in out?

I have something like that marked as MT01. If the stone is at all obvious then I would say definitely Mt01.

 

[Steevo]

What is "unnatural stone"?

 

[Feldspar]

What is "unnatural stone"?

I don't think it matters where it's natural stone or unnatural. If it's not dirt, then it's MT01.

 

[Sid]

What happens if the stones are actually touching....or have rocky outcrops?

 

[Feldspar]

Off topic, but I'm just wondering about this: I am using buffer strips and fallow (in the form of temporary grass) to get my EFAs. I'm mapping the buffer strips using 6m margins that I'm sure of and other banks which I'm less sure of. I have about a 10% overshoot in points at the moment just from these two. With hedges I could go way, way over what is needed, but having done hedges on 150ha worth of a separate business I'm very keen to not have to do it on the rest, particularly as it may only be for this year. What I want to know is if we get inspected and an inspector finds not enough buffer strips, will they then look around for other eligible EFA things and count the hedges, or will they only do this if I've declared them?

@Brisel ?

 

[Flat 10]

I googled nt03 and transport network had a definition including the words linking to a metalled road. I’ll see if I can find it.

 

[Hindsight]

That's what I think I'm going to assume. Will just mean an increase to my annual stack of RLE1 forms that I send them.

Genuine question. Why are you sending an RLE1 form to change track code? So long as the code is non eligible code does it really matter? I litter my forms with NA02 as a sort of 'dump' code. Would never think to submit an RLE1 to tell RPA about Mt03 or whatever. Hey ho.