Walking Forum
Main Boards => General Walking Discussion => Topic started by: sherpaboy on 11:39:57, 03/11/17
-
I live, and walk on anglesey. One of the footpaths i tried to use is extremely overgrown. There is a ladder style that leads to it, and a gravel driveway running parallel to it. To get to where i wanted to go, i was forced to use the gravel driveway. The gravel driveway is used by three houses. Two householders don't bother. But the last one the public footpath runs through his garden. He came runnung out of his house, saying if I didnt use the footpath, and not the driveway, i was trespassing. Is this true, and what, if anything can he do about it?
-
Yep it's true. However trespass is a civil offence and he can only sue you for it. For that he would need your name, address etcetera. and he would have to go to the expense of hiring a solicitor the costs of whom would be rarely covered in a one on one case. I find that in the one instance that this happened to me a grovelling apology sufficed and I ended up having a cuppa in the fellows house.
You should report the state of the ROW to the relevant officer in the local authority that covers that area. However they frequently depend on volunteers to help keep ROWs clear, so they may be interested in any help you can give personally.
-
You may legally seek an alternative route if the footpath is blocked.
-
I think the legal distance you are allowed to veer off the right of way is 5m either side. But as Jimbob says the trespass caused by avoiding obstruction is a civil matter and the cause of the obstruction may over ride the nuisance of an enforced trespass. It is a criminal offence to obstruct or attempt tp stop someone using a right of way, I personally think that not enough effort is made by local authorities to make landowners and property owners realise that bad husbandry which causes obstruction is an obstruction.
Because landowners are choosing to become involved in agricultural practice, to lessen their liability in capital transfer tax, they tend to disregard the responsibilities of husbandry they imposed on their tenants in tenancy agreements, when it was more convenient for them just to gather rents and be free of the harder work involved in farming. It has always struck me that local authorities are remiss in not billing landowners for money spent in clearing obstruction, such as seasonal overgrowth and worse as it was once considered good husbandry to maintain hedges, cut out verges and repair drainage so that the old ways did not deteriorate.
A hedge is as much a crop as as those seasonally planted, it will decline in usefulness if allowed to overgrow, it will become less stock proof is the bottom is choked with weeds, it would be a good idea if local authorities collected some old tenancy agreements, read them and started to instruct landowners to follow the example their forefathers expected of their tenants.
-
You should report the state of the ROW to the relevant officer in the local authority that covers that area. However they frequently depend on volunteers to help keep ROWs clear, so they may be interested in any help you can give personally.
Good luck with that. In my limited experience, they are a waste of time.
-
I sort of agree because I know some local authorities are better than others.
-
I live, and walk on anglesey. One of the footpaths i tried to use is extremely overgrown. There is a ladder style that leads to it, and a gravel driveway running parallel to it. To get to where i wanted to go, i was forced to use the gravel driveway. The gravel driveway is used by three houses. Two householders don't bother. But the last one the public footpath runs through his garden. He came runnung out of his house, saying if I didnt use the footpath, and not the driveway, i was trespassing. Is this true, and what, if anything can he do about it?
Were you on the coast path not far from Hell's Mouth by any chance? (between Bull Bay and Cemaes Bay)
-
The footpath i was trying to use is the first one as u leave bryntegg heading towards llangefni along the main rd. As i said there is a ladder style well signposted, that just descends into a forrest of thorny shrubs. It was impossible for me to get through it at all. I did go into the town hall and spoke to someone about it. And he said they would send someone up to look at it. Thank you all for your advice.
-
Good luck with that. In my limited experience, they are a waste of time.
I agree, Suffolk's Rights of Way Department usually fails to deal with issues despite initially saying they will, and subsequent reminders often don't get a response. Over the years I have reported many issues and although some would eventually be dealt with, it often seemed to take years. In many cases I have no idea whether it was my reporting it that resulted in something eventually being done or someone else.
I became very disillusioned with the whole process especially after an email exchange with an senior figure in the ROW Department who basically said I was making too many reports of issues with ROW, although he accepted that all that I had done were genuine and needed to be addressed :o
After a period of just not bothering to report issues I became aware of the Ramblers Pathwatch process which is very simple to use (as per their website). I suspect anything coming from the Ramblers will have more impact than the individual ::)
The other approach I have also now adopted is to send details of the ROW issues to the relevant Parish Council directly. I did this for one village I have connections with and the matter was then brought up at a Parish Council meeting. The Parish Council Clerk then approached the Suffolk ROW Department directly, and nineteen ROW issues were logged with them. Within six weeks all the issues were dealt with, many of which I had previously reported over the years repeatedly but nothing had happened O0
So if you are so minded that might be another approach worth trying :)
-
As a point of interest, I think there are many examples of historical precedence of a footpath being created by the need to avoid unsuitable conditions, actually mapped by the OS. I have just been comparing the route of my last walk with the 1880 first edition of the OS map. Where we walked along an attractive track which bowed around a field, there was a footpath mapped on the old map, a seemingly meaningless shortcut across the field, so short as to be hardly worth climbing fences for. Well dressed people of all classes would expect to arrive at their destinations dry and clean. The track was below the field level and so liable to be wet and and also likely to be cut up by passage of livestock.
I now find I see more of these anomalies comparing old maps with new, it can add a new interpretation of the old routes and their importance to local communities.
Perhaps more understanding by today's property owners might be learnt from the practices of rural communities 150 years ago.
-
Odd one today.
Following a footpath about a mile long, effectively from one fairly busy road (albeit with a good pavement) to another busy road with no pavement. In general direction I was walking better alternate routes available.
I just mention that general background because it struck me as one of those posers barewirewalker mentions from time to time: "why is there a footpath there at all". But not often in area, and obviously worth walking a footpath I'd never used before.
Surprisingly there was a clear path on the ground, and was finding all the stiles easily. The stiles were well maintained, and carried well maintained footpath signs. Everything suggested strongly that farmer welcomed walkers. Slight oddity was that stile placements didn't match that shown on OS map.
Got through to last field before road. As before well maintained stile with clear direction marker. But it was completely unpassable because farmer had sectioned the field, using "portable fencing" off into 12 mini paddocks with a horse in each mini fenced off area. And for first time there was no clear path on ground.
There was no way I was going to duck under 12 lots of mini fencing, while blundering around looking for proper direction, risking close proximity to 12 different horses, etc.
So climbed over nearby gate and used farm drive to get to road...expecting farmer to come out anytime..but nobody seemed to be about. (Which was a pity...because everything about general set-up suggested guy welcomed walkers, and I'm pretty sure there was a good explanation for last field seemingly being blocked. It might have been as simple as "everybody knows to use drive when I've got horses out".)
-
Ah yes, the old "everybody knows", excluding you!
I've been in a very similar situation following a well-signed permissive path around the back of a farmhouse. It was clear that the occupant preferred people to go this way rather than use the RoW that went up his drive and past his front door.
But I reached a corner of a pasture that was blocked off with electric fences, with the exit stile clearly in sight within them. The obvious solution was to climb over a metal five-bar gate into the adjoining field and continue to where the permissive path joined it.
-
What the law on your rights to cut the footpath clear?
I.e. is one within one's rights to clear it with a machete or saw?
-
Yes. You're allowed to remove any obstruction.
-
What the law on your rights to cut the footpath clear?
I.e. is one within one's rights to clear it with a machete or saw?
Tut tut ::)
A RoW is a public place so any knife prescribed as a dangerous weapon would get you into trouble if found on your person.
Sad but those who cannot behave have made it a very picky world.
-
If you can demonstrate 'reasonable cause' you're not doing anything illegal.
-
I have posted quite often on the need for machetes in the past, sadly I think the interpretation of carrying a well honed machete may be more subjective than objective in the face of a landowner seeing his carefully nurtured obstruction being suitable annihilated.
Head high bracken, dense brambles and briars that have developed well into woody growth are a few of the simple reasons, why walkers should be expected to carry a suitable tool, to help keep our off road ways clear.
-
Some people for whatever reason just don't like walkers.
My wife and myself were on a walk in the Bowland area.
We saw on our map that the ROW that we were following did a big loop around and through a small housing area to reach a stile leading back into open countryside.
We could see this stile just 50 metres down this private drive from where we now were.
We thought we would go down the drive to the stile saving us best part of a mile around the loop.
As we crossed the A road to the drive a car came up. The driver was a police women, who told us that the drive was private and we were not allowed down it. I explained that we were just heading for the stile. She would have non of it. Feeling intimidated by her uniform we set off around the loop.
This eventually brought us out over a wall stile and through part of a garden before leading onto the cobbled road and the stile we wanted.
Only three stone built houses and there was a guy outside of this first one whose garden we were walking through. I mentioned that a lady had stopped us walking down to the stile. He sort of smirked but didn't say anything, (maybe his wife, we thought).
So we walked through one garden and past the other two houses, when we could have avoided them altogether by just going down the drive a little.
-
Should have taken the policewoman number and reported her. She has no jurisdiction over simple trespass. She can only intervene if she believes a criminal offence is about to be committed. Remember anything you say can be taken down and used as evidence were she to arrest you. In this example you would be able to state clearly your intentions. The local constabulary would then open themselves up to civil action should they be unable to prove any criminal intent.
-
Care should be taken, before jumping to conclusions, where there seems to be anomalies. Often because of the difference in understanding of the purpose of the 1949 act that created the definitive map many surveyors or compilers thought that they recording ways for the use of local people. Today a broader knowledge of both political purpose and the legal detail would be in the instructions but this was absent in those far off post war years.
The anomaly of a right of way ending at the back of a property and not actually connecting with the highway as it is seen today is quite common. The anomaly of Orleton Hall, Wellington is such where a landowner can claim that a half mile of white lane is private so that a RoW out of the town just comes to a sudden end.
West of the Breidens there is a lovely path across several sloping meadows, it would help to connect the Breidens to the Maginnis Bridge, giving a wonderful route through countryside to cross the river Severn and the Welsh border.
Trouble is this paths (RoW) stops short of the lane by about 50yds at the garden of a cottage and connect to the road.
As with the Maginnis Bridge, RoW lead to both sides but there is no right of way across the bridge, so one of the best non highway crossings into mid Wales cannot be made known.
-
I would like to thank everyone who replied. Also i would like to say, normally i carry a pair of secatuers. But this actuall path is much to overgrown for using them on. Again is there a set time, in which, if the path is not used, it can be closed down?
-
... is there a set time, in which, if the path is not used, it can be closed down?
No. If it is a legal Public Right of Way and marked as such on a map then it MIGHT only be closed if someone is willing to pay legal fees to apply for it's closure and there is no resistance to that request. There's usually signage up (put up by the Local Authority/Council) to indicate if the path is undergoing any sort of request for closure.
I'm willing to be corrected on this bit though... if the path runs across that angry chappie's land, then he has a duty of care to maintain it to a reasonable/passable standard........ Barewirewalkeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!?.......
-
No. If it is a legal Public Right of Way and marked as such on a map then it MIGHT only be closed if someone is willing to pay legal fees to apply for it's closure and there is no resistance to that request. There's usually signage up (put up by the Local Authority/Council) to indicate if the path is undergoing any sort of request for closure.
I'm willing to be corrected on this bit though... if the path runs across that angry chappie's land, then he has a duty of care to maintain it to a reasonable/passable standard........ Barewirewalkeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!?.......
Agreed, a Right of Way cannot be closed through disuse. Mel is very right in raising 'Duty of Care', this is an aspect which there is not enough attention brought to bear on. The grant of Freehold has responsibilities, they may not be written down but perhaps it is time that landowners were bought to realise that they are part of a wider community.
AND as a P.S. Duty of care is something that comes into health and safety law.
-
Think a PROW cannot be permanantly closed without an order signed off by a bod at the Home Office?
-
I think the closure of a right of way has to be sought by the owner of the land it crosses and I believe the term is an 'extinguishment order' or something like that, that term seems to stick in my mind since my time on a LAF. I do not have a great ability to follow legal nitty gritty, because as a person, who has had more success in creating stuff, negativity does not seem to stick in my mind as much as positive lines of thought.
The big danger, I sense, is in the fast tracking that has been agreed for opening up 'lostways', since the demise of the lostways project and the 'Stepping Forward' initiative. I suspect that closures of seeming unused rights of way may well be given the same fast tracking as the re-establishment of lostways. The British notion of fair play despite the deliberate corruption of the definitive Map by the forefathers of todays landowners.
So often the important part of a notional lostway (say X2Y) may be a little used RoW (Y2Z) some distance from it, if there seems to be a continuity of way created by the lostway and it further links into the access network (W2X) we come up with W2X + X2Y + Y2Z = a much increased distance of multiples a lot greater than 3.
English Nature suggested that 10% of our access network could have been lost to lostways but a more imaginative view of lostways could well show a far greater gain to our access network.
The Lostways Project by English Nature only investigated the legal strength of available proof to recover lost ways, they did not look at the political corruption that created those lostways or the value of an access network that might have been with their inclusion.
-
Think a PROW cannot be permanantly closed without an order signed off by a bod at the Home Office?
Doubt it. The Home Office, broadly speaking, deal with passports, UK border control, immigration, national security, (serious) crime prevention. Some basic info here: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/home-office/about
-
A couple of head scratchers today.
Never been to Langley Mill before..but decide today is day to rectify that. Look for a short walk in area, and easily find one:- Amber Valley Routeway 13, about 5 miles. Circular from centre of Langley Mill, doing part of Erewash canal. Flat as a pancake, but pleasant enough.
After a bit of argy-bargy finding start, following directions pretty easily, doubt if I was more than a yard or two off official route at any point of walk.
The "head scratchers" come towards end of walk, having reached a farm called "Park Farm". The public footpath is bang through farmyard..which has a big notice saying "Enter at own risk". Surely that has almost no legitimate meaning? Yes..I can see I have a duty to act reasonably on way through yard...but farmer can't dodge his own responsibilities to do same. (i.e. He knows a public footpath goes through yard..so no excuse to allow aggressive dogs run loose..whatever.)
Anyway..right through centre of yard..no dogs or anything else loose. Easily find exit stile...and easily find stile into next field. This stile has two signs on it. One a public footpath sign, confirming I'm bang on track and a second large warning sign saying "Caution Bull loose in field"!
There isn't...but what is point of sign? Surely no remotely sensible farmer puts any bull that is remotely dangerous in a field where a public footpath goes through??
-
Farmers should remove signs when the bull isn't present but certain bull breeds under certain conditions can be in fields where there is public access.
As for the other sign that could be deemed to be threatening and an attempt to stop folks using the ROW. I'd report it to your local council or whoever in your area is responsible for maintaining ROWs. If I can find it I'll post a link about this as signage like that is, I think, illegal.
-
Farmers should remove signs when the bull isn't present but certain bull breeds under certain conditions can be in fields where there is public access.
As for the other sign that could be deemed to be threatening and an attempt to stop folks using the ROW. I'd report it to your local council or whoever in your area is responsible for maintaining ROWs. If I can find it I'll post a link about this as signage like that is, I think, illegal.
Cheers. I was thinking about contacting local rights of way officer..I have done a few times before on slightly more vexing problems.
The “idea” of the bull actually being in the field didn’t bother..as I know it’s perfectly okay to put one of appropriate breed (and temperament!) in a field with a footpath as you say.
It was more the design of the sign which seemed aimed at intimidating/ warning people away. It wasn’t calculated (I suspect) to give re-assurance that the bull concerned was in fact “safe”. A suspicion that was strengthened by fact that sign was there with bull completely absent.
-
The sign in the farmyard could be to warn of farm machinery which might be moving about if it is a working farm. Granted, a clumsily worded sign. A sign of some sort might need to be displayed for their insurance purposes.
-
English Nature suggested that 10% of our access network could have been lost to lostways but a more imaginative view of lostways could well show a far greater gain to our access network.
My own very minor research in villages near me suggests a far higher level of loss than 10%. I wouldn't be surprised if it was 50% but I don't think we will ever know :-X
-
I think little research was done. It is probable that EN took a stab in the dark, if I were still on a LAF and Shrewsbury, just becoming a new University town, I would be asking if the county council should be suggesting introducing detailed study on this subject and the economic influences that might be discovered from such a study.
Shropshire is a prime example; The county chose a internal circular route as its flagship way, was this because the areas of absence rights of way made any other choice of routes impossible. Like an estate of 500 acres, without footpaths in will block and divert routes from reaching destinations of features, the whole county stops cross country routes from reaching destinations beyond it's boundaries. Does this cost the national economy revenue and can it be demonstrated by good academic investigation?
-
@PaulDawes
I live about 20 miles away from Langley Mill but don't know the route you took, however I do know the Rights of Way Inspector for Amber Valley who is excellent. His name is David Jenkinson, email: David.Jenkinson at derbyshire.gov.uk.
I would think that both the signs encountered were not legal. The HSE advice on signs for bulls in fields states that:
A suitable bull sign would be triangular with a yellow background and a black band around the outside. A bull or bull’s head should be shown (black on yellow) on the sign, with supplementary text (also black on yellow) such as ‘bull infield’ if desired. Supplementary text should not suggest that the bull is aggressive, threatening or dangerous (i.e. avoid words such as ‘beware’ or‘danger’).
As to Unrecorded Ways:
English Nature suggested that 10% of our access network could have been lost to lost ways but a more imaginative view of lost ways could well show a far greater gain to our access network.
My researches in South Derbyshire and NW Leicestershire would put the figure around 10% but the County Councils here were pretty efficient in managing the process in the early 1950s and there were very active footpath preservation groups in both areas. Of course, there are still black holes where the chairman of the Parish Council or Meeting was the main landowner and ensured that the number of paths claimed was at the minimum for that parish.
I have seen evidence on other discussion boards that Suffolk County Council was particularly unhelpful in the claiming procedure.
-
@PaulDawes
I live about 20 miles away from Langley Mill but don't know the route you took, however I do know the Rights of Way Inspector for Amber Valley who is excellent. His name is David Jenkinson, email: David.Jenkinson at derbyshire.gov.uk.
Thanks for that.
-
I have seen evidence on other discussion boards that Suffolk County Council was particularly unhelpful in the claiming procedure.
That certainly seems to have been the case based on some of my research. Whilst looking into the ROW of one particular Suffolk village I have an interest in, I was told that Suffolk County Council had back in the 1950's actively encouraged Parish Councils to only record those ROW that they considered to be still used. Given that the make up of Parish Council's tended to be very much dominated by the landowning classes this I often lead to considerable corruption of the definitive map. Some, indeed many, areas of the village I am referring to are now devoid of any ROW.
An examination of ordnance survey maps of this village shows a considerable number of ROW that were almost certainly lost. Whilst clearly not conclusive evidence that a ROW existed, the nature of many of these suggests very strongly that they were ROW. Yes admittedly they will have fallen into comparative disuse, but as they never reached the definitive map, the corruption of this has facilitated their removal from potential future use. It is quite remarkable the effort landowners can put into blocking up these routes, repositioning field entrances, adding ditches etc... to remove indications of the lost routes, just in case someone should raise the issue. Equally they all seem to have very good memories of what and what hasn't happened for generations, and are always certain there was never a ROW not withstanding a footpath was marked on OS maps for 100 plus years ::)
The village I have looked in detail at has ROW that total about 6.2 miles, not much for a large village. My research points at possibly another 6.1 miles that never made it onto the definitive map. I fear most of these additional ROW never will :(
Interestingly the recent neighbourhood plan questionnaires for this village have resulted in many comments on: the lack of ROW in the village; how those that do exist don't link up with each other, often resulting in dangerous road walking; and that many seem to serve no logical purpose on their own. Much of this must stem from the corruption of this villages' ROW on the definitive map. That said many nearby villages are in an even worse situation >:(
The difficulty is now to prove what has happened, evidence is often poor beyond OS maps, and of course virtually all those that once walked these routes are long gone. The process of re-establishing these ROW is not easy; and without organised support I suspect is beyond the capabilities of most individuals. I for one will keep walking these lostways, and encouraging others that are so mined, in the hope that some can be reclaimed O0
-
I for one will keep walking these lostways, and encouraging others that are so mined, in the hope that some can be reclaimed O0
Good for you, I'd do the same. Slightly different but I had a fight with my local council a few years ago over a footpath that had fallen into disuse, simply because the landowner had partitioned it up into fenced areas where horses were kept. Stiles and signs had been removed, and an 'alternative path' signed around the whole thing, which was a considerably longer route. Investigation showed that it was known about, and had been for many years, but the council had simply added it to a 'paths no longer accessible' list. It took me issuing a threat of court action before the council acted, installing modern gates etc etc. One of their objections to doing so was that they only had a limited budget, and opening that path would prevent other work being done. I did point out that that argument was nonsense, as the landowner is responsible and should be made to pay. Whether they ever did I don't know.
-
Thanks sussamb, and well done to you O0
I am aware of a very similar situation to the one you describe. In this case a footpath crosses a field which is blocked by a number of fences used to sub-divide into paddocks for horses, some of which are electric fences. All relevant waymarkers have disappeared, although I did find one in undergrowth, snapped off of course ::)
I first raised the issue with SCC ROW Team back in August 2013. They said it would be dealt with re blocked access and signs replaced. Nothing happened so in 2014 I raised it again, nothing. I then contact the ROW directly in 2014 rather than the online reporting system. I was told the waymarkers had been replaced, but they agreed on inspection that they had disappeared, so they would be replaced again and concreted in; they never have. They also said that the blocked path was a long running dispute with the landowner and that it was now going to pushed up to the legal team to resolve the issue.
As of March 2017 everything remained the same as far as I could tell. I haven't gone back to Suffolk ROW Department as quite frankly they seem useless. As I have often referred to on this forum they say they will do something but usually don't do it, and if they do it takes for ever. I would try my other newer approach of going via the Parish Council, but I know that for this village the landowner is sits thereon, and as he owns almost the entire village nothing would be done I suspect :(
I have also historically reported it to the Ramblers both locally (back in 2014) and again through their "pathwatch" online system in 2016. It would appear they have no influence in this case either.
If I hadn't been so obviously vocal on this issue, I would be minded to walk the route anyway and cut the fences if necessary. I don't want to damage things but given this has been an issue for many years it does make you quite angry >:(
-
You might want to follow the route (pardon the pun) here. It worked for me ...
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/advice/improve-the-path-network/how-to-get-an-obstruction-removed.aspx
-
This information on the Open Spaces Society website might help as well:
http://www.oss.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Annex-6B-Feb-13.pdf
-
That's Form 1 in the link I posted ;)