This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I was out for a walk yesterday and encountered something that I wonder if anyone else has experience of? I was following a footpath to a farm where it intersected another path to form a foot path crossroads if you like. However after initially realising I was on the other side of the hedge from that marked on the path I then started being routed by signs with "permissive path - not public right of way" on them. After a bit of snuffling around and doubling back I managed to get past the farm and on to my next waypoint but it seemed that what had happened is the footpaths marked on the map had disappeared and been replaced with permissive paths rerouting the footpaths away from the farm. I'm a bit suprised as a) I thought it was very hard to get footpaths moved and b) I would have thought that if they were moved it would have been onto a footpath diversion rather than a permissive path which indicates that access can be removed if the land owner deems fit?
What I suspect has happened in this case is the footpaths are still there just the signs have been ahem *lost* and traffic now gets handily diverted onto the new permissive path further away from the property owner.
Apologies for a quite geeky post, also I'm not up in arms about this, more curious and slightly unsettled.
What I suspect has happened in this case is the footpaths are still there just the signs have been ahem *lost* and traffic now gets handily diverted onto the new permissive path further away from the property owner.
Apologies for a quite geeky post, also I'm not up in arms about this, more curious and slightly unsettled.
In reply to Bobling:
Sounds highly complex!
As I see it, pertinent points are
a) footpaths can fall into disuse, and if this situation goes on for a long time (IIRC more than 20 years) they will be "lost" as public rights of way forever.
b) a land owner is at liberty to create permissive paths anywhere and anytime they like. By putting "no public right of way" on them they keep them as permissive and can withdraw that right anytime they like to.
If the public have ceased to use a public footpath (I wonder why?), that's hardly the landowner's fault, but it may be convenient for them. However in the case you describe it sounds as though the public may have started to use an alternative route because the original public right of way has fallen into disuse, and whilst the landowner has no objection to the alternative they are anxious for it not to become a prescriptive right.
Seems a fair compromise if the original footpath has fallen into disuse. They have could put a "private - no path" sign on it, which if the original path has fallen into disuse would leave walkers stranded with no-where to go.
Do you know why the original path has become disused? Does the same landowner own the land where the path has fallen into disuse as the permissive path? There may be two different land owners here.
BTW the OS is not definitive so far as public footpaths shown on it are concerned. To get the definitive route of a public footpath you need to look at the Local Council's definitive map.
To stop a footpath falling into disuse you need to walk it, but be certain of your rights first or you maybe trespassing.
If you feel strongly about this situation contact your local branch of the Rambers who will have a Footpaths Officer.
Sounds highly complex!
As I see it, pertinent points are
a) footpaths can fall into disuse, and if this situation goes on for a long time (IIRC more than 20 years) they will be "lost" as public rights of way forever.
b) a land owner is at liberty to create permissive paths anywhere and anytime they like. By putting "no public right of way" on them they keep them as permissive and can withdraw that right anytime they like to.
If the public have ceased to use a public footpath (I wonder why?), that's hardly the landowner's fault, but it may be convenient for them. However in the case you describe it sounds as though the public may have started to use an alternative route because the original public right of way has fallen into disuse, and whilst the landowner has no objection to the alternative they are anxious for it not to become a prescriptive right.
Seems a fair compromise if the original footpath has fallen into disuse. They have could put a "private - no path" sign on it, which if the original path has fallen into disuse would leave walkers stranded with no-where to go.
Do you know why the original path has become disused? Does the same landowner own the land where the path has fallen into disuse as the permissive path? There may be two different land owners here.
BTW the OS is not definitive so far as public footpaths shown on it are concerned. To get the definitive route of a public footpath you need to look at the Local Council's definitive map.
To stop a footpath falling into disuse you need to walk it, but be certain of your rights first or you maybe trespassing.
If you feel strongly about this situation contact your local branch of the Rambers who will have a Footpaths Officer.
Post edited at 22:38
In reply to Bobling:
Your local council should have a footpaths officer you could chat to / email about it? Ours seems quite friendly!
Your local council should have a footpaths officer you could chat to / email about it? Ours seems quite friendly!
1
In reply to Bobling:
A similar thing has happened here in Mid Wales. A public footpath has been re-routed uphill well above a farm instead of going straight through it and then continuing along the valley floor. There are no permissive signs, just proper council FP signs. However, it all seems very rough and ready and although the 'new' footpath leads you back down in the general direction of the valley floor, it suddenly ends on the hillside at the farm's boundary fence. There's no stile or gate and beyond it, on the neighbouring farmer's land, there's an impenetrable area of gorse and a very steep slope separating the end of the 'new' path from the line of the 'former' path's continuation on the valley floor. To get to the original path now involves some desperate downwards scrambling on cr@p rock above an abyss in order to avoid the gorse. Interesting with a dog on a lead I can tell you, especially when eye contact with the beast tells you that he'd much rather fend for himself rather than be attached to an-about-to-fall human desperately grasping handfulls of heather.
Coincidentally, there is a huge, recently built barn now occupying the route of the former path. It's patently obvious that the farmer decided to build his new shed across the line of the FP and has diverted the path himself, using the FP signs from the original path. However, his land doesn't extend far enough to ensure that the 'new' path can return to the valley floor, so it just, er, ends in the middle of nowhere on a hillside.
Having lived in Mid Wales for over 40 years, I realise that such red-neck behaviour is not uncommon in these parts, so I wasn't overly surprised by any of this - although the sheer barefaced audacity and scale of it all is nevertheless quite impressive.
Anyway, I brought this to the attention of the council's RoW dept. They confirmed that there had been no application to change the route of the FP, but on a level of 1-10, their interest level barely scored a 1 and after several mentions of 'chronic under-staffing', 'lack of resources' and 'funding cutbacks' it became crystal clear that they're going to do sweet FA about any of it. Problem is, we also seem to have a redneck county council - and a poor one at that, in every sense of the word.
A similar thing has happened here in Mid Wales. A public footpath has been re-routed uphill well above a farm instead of going straight through it and then continuing along the valley floor. There are no permissive signs, just proper council FP signs. However, it all seems very rough and ready and although the 'new' footpath leads you back down in the general direction of the valley floor, it suddenly ends on the hillside at the farm's boundary fence. There's no stile or gate and beyond it, on the neighbouring farmer's land, there's an impenetrable area of gorse and a very steep slope separating the end of the 'new' path from the line of the 'former' path's continuation on the valley floor. To get to the original path now involves some desperate downwards scrambling on cr@p rock above an abyss in order to avoid the gorse. Interesting with a dog on a lead I can tell you, especially when eye contact with the beast tells you that he'd much rather fend for himself rather than be attached to an-about-to-fall human desperately grasping handfulls of heather.
Coincidentally, there is a huge, recently built barn now occupying the route of the former path. It's patently obvious that the farmer decided to build his new shed across the line of the FP and has diverted the path himself, using the FP signs from the original path. However, his land doesn't extend far enough to ensure that the 'new' path can return to the valley floor, so it just, er, ends in the middle of nowhere on a hillside.
Having lived in Mid Wales for over 40 years, I realise that such red-neck behaviour is not uncommon in these parts, so I wasn't overly surprised by any of this - although the sheer barefaced audacity and scale of it all is nevertheless quite impressive.
Anyway, I brought this to the attention of the council's RoW dept. They confirmed that there had been no application to change the route of the FP, but on a level of 1-10, their interest level barely scored a 1 and after several mentions of 'chronic under-staffing', 'lack of resources' and 'funding cutbacks' it became crystal clear that they're going to do sweet FA about any of it. Problem is, we also seem to have a redneck county council - and a poor one at that, in every sense of the word.
2
In reply to Bobling:
I've seen this happen in the peak district, you come to a gates with signs warning about big dogs, with a sign for a permissive path leading you around the property and fear of big dogs chasing you. Our best guess was that owner was trying to get the right of way removed due to lack of use by providing the permissive path that could later be removed.
I've seen this happen in the peak district, you come to a gates with signs warning about big dogs, with a sign for a permissive path leading you around the property and fear of big dogs chasing you. Our best guess was that owner was trying to get the right of way removed due to lack of use by providing the permissive path that could later be removed.
2
In reply to Dave Williams:
A blatant action like that you describe makes my blood boil and I would make a point of walking the correct path as often as possible, and get my friends involved too. Obviously when you reach the barn you will have to go round it (or better still throught it if it's open).
Hopefully the owner will see you and challenge you. You can politely tell him to piss off for blocking a footpath.
There is really nothing he can do. He can't call the police because you are not trespassing. On the other hand if he touches you or threatens you, you can call the police.
There is a footpath near me where the land owner has done exactly what you describe (apart from putting a barn on the path). He has prised off existing footpath signs and used them to divert the path away from his house. I've checked with the local council footpaths officer who has confirmed that the diversion is unofficial, however he said the land owner has applied for a diversion, but has jumped the gun. I've continued to walk the correct path and twice been challenged by the owners. They crumble when you resist their verbal attacks accusing you of trespassing.
I do have some sympathy with them because the path goes very close to their house and the "diversion" is through quite a nice field and rejoins the proper path, however I've told them that I object to their underhand deception. If they had put up signs saying "please use permissive path diversion" I'd probably go along with them. However I object to the principle of a land owner unilaterally closing and diverting a public right of way and using official signs on his unofficial diversion without getting a proper alteration to the definitive map.
To allow this is the thin edge of the wedge.
A blatant action like that you describe makes my blood boil and I would make a point of walking the correct path as often as possible, and get my friends involved too. Obviously when you reach the barn you will have to go round it (or better still throught it if it's open).
Hopefully the owner will see you and challenge you. You can politely tell him to piss off for blocking a footpath.
There is really nothing he can do. He can't call the police because you are not trespassing. On the other hand if he touches you or threatens you, you can call the police.
There is a footpath near me where the land owner has done exactly what you describe (apart from putting a barn on the path). He has prised off existing footpath signs and used them to divert the path away from his house. I've checked with the local council footpaths officer who has confirmed that the diversion is unofficial, however he said the land owner has applied for a diversion, but has jumped the gun. I've continued to walk the correct path and twice been challenged by the owners. They crumble when you resist their verbal attacks accusing you of trespassing.
I do have some sympathy with them because the path goes very close to their house and the "diversion" is through quite a nice field and rejoins the proper path, however I've told them that I object to their underhand deception. If they had put up signs saying "please use permissive path diversion" I'd probably go along with them. However I object to the principle of a land owner unilaterally closing and diverting a public right of way and using official signs on his unofficial diversion without getting a proper alteration to the definitive map.
To allow this is the thin edge of the wedge.
9
In reply to Dave Williams:
As a mid Wales inhabitannt, I feel your pain! Also been battling footpaths for 30+ years, its like another planet compared to other parts of the country. But I find things are slowly improving - at a snails pace.
Most permissive paths I have come across are simple diversions around a farm or house, normally to everyone's benefit and I stick to them without problem, others seem to be entirely voluntary paths over farmland (there are some good and thought full landowners). But any sign of deliberate blockage of a path and I attempt to plough through.
As a mid Wales inhabitannt, I feel your pain! Also been battling footpaths for 30+ years, its like another planet compared to other parts of the country. But I find things are slowly improving - at a snails pace.
Most permissive paths I have come across are simple diversions around a farm or house, normally to everyone's benefit and I stick to them without problem, others seem to be entirely voluntary paths over farmland (there are some good and thought full landowners). But any sign of deliberate blockage of a path and I attempt to plough through.
In reply to Bobling:
Footpaths do not cease to be after 20 years of non-use - bit of a persistent myth - but they can be closed/diverted by legal order.
There is nothing to stop a landowner offering permissve routes on their land so long as the original is not obstructed (by them. You also cannot mislead the public into thinking the permissive route is the only path as this too would count as an obstruction
One for the local rights of way section though.
Footpaths do not cease to be after 20 years of non-use - bit of a persistent myth - but they can be closed/diverted by legal order.
There is nothing to stop a landowner offering permissve routes on their land so long as the original is not obstructed (by them. You also cannot mislead the public into thinking the permissive route is the only path as this too would count as an obstruction
One for the local rights of way section though.
2
In reply to Bobling:
Definitely contact the local council (County Council if its in a "shire" area in UK, not a district council)
Mine here in Leicestershire were brilliant a few years ago when this happened - and wouldn't take any old nonsense from the farm owner who was being obstructive. However that was before 4 years of a Coalition Govt devastated the council resources and sadly I feel that I may not get a similar response if I tried again. In fact I probably wouldn't even be able to get anyone on the phone - I think you have to log an email enquiry now.
The local Parish Council might be able to help?
Ours are also very active about protecting paths etc, even though they are essentially all volunteers.
Definitely contact the local council (County Council if its in a "shire" area in UK, not a district council)
Mine here in Leicestershire were brilliant a few years ago when this happened - and wouldn't take any old nonsense from the farm owner who was being obstructive. However that was before 4 years of a Coalition Govt devastated the council resources and sadly I feel that I may not get a similar response if I tried again. In fact I probably wouldn't even be able to get anyone on the phone - I think you have to log an email enquiry now.
The local Parish Council might be able to help?
Ours are also very active about protecting paths etc, even though they are essentially all volunteers.
In reply to Bulls Crack:
TBH where a public path goes through a farm I would much prefer to have the option of an alternative route (I'm terrified of dogs and even when on chains or locked in buildings I find walking through farmyards terrifying). So long as it's clearly marked (eg: permissive path avoiding farm), not a significant detour and suitably maintained (not finishing in a gorse bush!) I don't see a problem.
> There is nothing to stop a landowner offering permissve routes on their land so long as the original is not obstructed (by them. You also cannot mislead the public into thinking the permissive route is the only path as this too would count as an obstruction
TBH where a public path goes through a farm I would much prefer to have the option of an alternative route (I'm terrified of dogs and even when on chains or locked in buildings I find walking through farmyards terrifying). So long as it's clearly marked (eg: permissive path avoiding farm), not a significant detour and suitably maintained (not finishing in a gorse bush!) I don't see a problem.
In reply to Jenny C:
I generally agree but liability issues and the nature of highways law can make it all a bit of a nightmare. The landowner might be better off in the long run to dedicate a new legal right of waybut that wouldn't automatically mean that the original one would be discontinued.
I generally agree but liability issues and the nature of highways law can make it all a bit of a nightmare. The landowner might be better off in the long run to dedicate a new legal right of waybut that wouldn't automatically mean that the original one would be discontinued.
In reply to Bobling:
This is my worry and I think you are right. Once a footpath becomes permissive and the original line is no longer used I think we can lose that access.
This is my worry and I think you are right. Once a footpath becomes permissive and the original line is no longer used I think we can lose that access.
In reply to Bobling:
http://www.rowmaps.com/
86 authorities have released under licence the data about their rights of way
I to think your correct, its use it or loos it
http://www.rowmaps.com/
86 authorities have released under licence the data about their rights of way
I to think your correct, its use it or loos it
In reply to ceri:
I'm not sure what the odds of a Council having a Footpaths Officer are these days. Probably better in a large rural County.
I'm not sure what the odds of a Council having a Footpaths Officer are these days. Probably better in a large rural County.
In reply to The New NickB:
Your local ramblers will have one.
> I'm not sure what the odds of a Council having a Footpaths Officer are these days. Probably better in a large rural County.
Your local ramblers will have one.
1
In reply to The New NickB:
They will have details on the existing footpaths, and perhaps any local knowledge of route changes / temporary redirections. They will also know who to speak to at the council.
> Yes, not quite the same thing though!
They will have details on the existing footpaths, and perhaps any local knowledge of route changes / temporary redirections. They will also know who to speak to at the council.
In reply to The New NickB:
No, but the Ramblers as an organisation are a great pressure group to monitor and fight for footpaths to be kept open and unobstruted.
Did you know that under the 2000 Countryside and Rights of Way Act all footpaths created before 1946 cannot be recorded after 1 January 2026 and if they are not shown on the definitive maps by that date, they will be lost for ever? There are believed to be thousands of such paths out there and with the cut backs to County Councils their footpaths officers can't keep up with the work of recording them all. There is only just over 10 years to go so the Ramblers are actively involved in helping to record all these paths for posterity.
> Yes, not quite the same thing though!
No, but the Ramblers as an organisation are a great pressure group to monitor and fight for footpaths to be kept open and unobstruted.
Did you know that under the 2000 Countryside and Rights of Way Act all footpaths created before 1946 cannot be recorded after 1 January 2026 and if they are not shown on the definitive maps by that date, they will be lost for ever? There are believed to be thousands of such paths out there and with the cut backs to County Councils their footpaths officers can't keep up with the work of recording them all. There is only just over 10 years to go so the Ramblers are actively involved in helping to record all these paths for posterity.
2
In reply to Dave Williams:
Do they not have a duty to look into this, and if they do not how can you as a citizen demand this?
> Anyway, I brought this to the attention of the council's RoW dept. They confirmed that there had been no application to change the route of the FP, but on a level of 1-10, their interest level barely scored a 1 and after several mentions of 'chronic under-staffing', 'lack of resources' and 'funding cutbacks' it became crystal clear that they're going to do sweet FA about any of it. Problem is, we also seem to have a redneck county council - and a poor one at that, in every sense of the word.
Do they not have a duty to look into this, and if they do not how can you as a citizen demand this?
In reply to Que Sera Sera:
Justabout all PROW departments are facing this situation and are heavily prioritising their work. They do however have a duty to ensure PROW are open and can be taken to task on this but, unless its a real issue for you I wouldn't want to go that far
Justabout all PROW departments are facing this situation and are heavily prioritising their work. They do however have a duty to ensure PROW are open and can be taken to task on this but, unless its a real issue for you I wouldn't want to go that far
1
In reply to Bulls Crack:
Sadly, this seems to be the case here in Mid Wales. I emailed the RoW dept as there's no longer a contact phone number but received no response so I visited them and found a dept decimated by cuts, with 9 FTE staff now reduced to 3.5. I was told that they'd 'make a note of it' but couldn't say if/ when they'd look into it as it wouldn't be high on their priorities - which were, AIR, planning applications involving RoW, long-distance FPs, BWs, byways and FPs in that order. I could also tell that they thought I was grossly exaggerating both the extent and the nature of the diversion (asked 'Are you quite sure?' several times!) and so were doubting the credibility of the info I was giving them anyway, which didn't help.
Yes, I realise that they have a duty to look into it, but you've got to be realistic at the same time. Folk have just voted nationally for even more austerity, even more cuts, so this situation will doubtless soon be the norm everywhere, if it isn't already. The CC in question here is currently facing a 5% budget cut and residents have long been warned that the "face of public services will change forever" as the council faces £45m budget cuts over three years. An unauthorised FP deviation has got to be viewed in perspective alongside the imminent closure of all public conveniences, closure of libraries, several primary schools and 3 secondary schools ....
> Just about all PROW departments are facing this situation and are heavily prioritising their work. They do however have a duty to ensure PROW are open and can be taken to task on this but, unless its a real issue for you I wouldn't want to go that far.
Sadly, this seems to be the case here in Mid Wales. I emailed the RoW dept as there's no longer a contact phone number but received no response so I visited them and found a dept decimated by cuts, with 9 FTE staff now reduced to 3.5. I was told that they'd 'make a note of it' but couldn't say if/ when they'd look into it as it wouldn't be high on their priorities - which were, AIR, planning applications involving RoW, long-distance FPs, BWs, byways and FPs in that order. I could also tell that they thought I was grossly exaggerating both the extent and the nature of the diversion (asked 'Are you quite sure?' several times!) and so were doubting the credibility of the info I was giving them anyway, which didn't help.
Yes, I realise that they have a duty to look into it, but you've got to be realistic at the same time. Folk have just voted nationally for even more austerity, even more cuts, so this situation will doubtless soon be the norm everywhere, if it isn't already. The CC in question here is currently facing a 5% budget cut and residents have long been warned that the "face of public services will change forever" as the council faces £45m budget cuts over three years. An unauthorised FP deviation has got to be viewed in perspective alongside the imminent closure of all public conveniences, closure of libraries, several primary schools and 3 secondary schools ....
In reply to Bobling: If the Rights of Way department doesn't have the manpower to investigate it then what about the Big Society that Cameron was so keen on? Publish where the blocked path is and you'll have plenty of forumites walking it...
2
In reply to Bobling:
Slightly in context, this week I dropped off the Rhinogs and found myself on the new lakeside trail around Trawsfynedd reservoir, for a couple of miles. No expense spared, 3 metre wide wooden bridges, gravelled, fenced, marked etc. this must have cost mega £££s.
Probably financed from some grant (EU maybe?), but I did wonder if spending all that money on a single 8 mile track could be justified when our grass roots PROW are falling apart.
Slightly in context, this week I dropped off the Rhinogs and found myself on the new lakeside trail around Trawsfynedd reservoir, for a couple of miles. No expense spared, 3 metre wide wooden bridges, gravelled, fenced, marked etc. this must have cost mega £££s.
Probably financed from some grant (EU maybe?), but I did wonder if spending all that money on a single 8 mile track could be justified when our grass roots PROW are falling apart.
In reply to Moley:
It's a new permissive circular cycling and walking path around the lake - hence the surface and bridge widths. You're right about the funding stream too - a joint Gwynedd CC and Natural Resources Wales project, funded by European Regional Development Fund monies. It's a key part of a scheme to turn Traws lake into a major tourist attraction. (Just ignore the highly radioactive concrete monolith and look at the pretty lake instead.) Once the hulk becomes invisible, totally buried under a huge mountain of slate waste, there's little doubt that this is then destined to become the Windermere of North Wales.
Cynical? Moi?
BTW, I completely agree with you re. the existing PRoW network. NRW are yet to clear many of the Coed y Brenin bridleways and footpaths still blocked by windfall after the winter gales of 2013-14 because of ..... a lack of funding.
It's a new permissive circular cycling and walking path around the lake - hence the surface and bridge widths. You're right about the funding stream too - a joint Gwynedd CC and Natural Resources Wales project, funded by European Regional Development Fund monies. It's a key part of a scheme to turn Traws lake into a major tourist attraction. (Just ignore the highly radioactive concrete monolith and look at the pretty lake instead.) Once the hulk becomes invisible, totally buried under a huge mountain of slate waste, there's little doubt that this is then destined to become the Windermere of North Wales.
Cynical? Moi?
BTW, I completely agree with you re. the existing PRoW network. NRW are yet to clear many of the Coed y Brenin bridleways and footpaths still blocked by windfall after the winter gales of 2013-14 because of ..... a lack of funding.
Post edited at 14:22
In reply to Dave Williams:
Sounds par for the course Dave. I'm not against it from the perspective of introducing the public to the "Wilds of Wales" and it being a facility to encourage outdoor health and other benefits to the public. Like you, it seems a lot of money on what is ultimately very little, and when there is very little money about I feel PROW would be better priorities, not all will agree.
I was chatting to a farmer on the path (walking his dog) who said as soon as it was finished there was a brand new Landrover Discovery trying to drive round it - got stuck on one his bridges (damage etc.). Bound to happen!
All a little frustrating as I try to get a few simple paths marked out and stiles around our village area. Never mind, I'm old and grumpy.
Sounds par for the course Dave. I'm not against it from the perspective of introducing the public to the "Wilds of Wales" and it being a facility to encourage outdoor health and other benefits to the public. Like you, it seems a lot of money on what is ultimately very little, and when there is very little money about I feel PROW would be better priorities, not all will agree.
I was chatting to a farmer on the path (walking his dog) who said as soon as it was finished there was a brand new Landrover Discovery trying to drive round it - got stuck on one his bridges (damage etc.). Bound to happen!
All a little frustrating as I try to get a few simple paths marked out and stiles around our village area. Never mind, I'm old and grumpy.
In reply to Moley:
Easy access/access for all routes are still in very short supply nationally and, whilst expensive in footpath terms, are often greatly valued and provide people with opportunities the might not otherwise have. It may well have had some funding form somewhere -in fact a quick google and it look like ERDF was involved with various partners
Easy access/access for all routes are still in very short supply nationally and, whilst expensive in footpath terms, are often greatly valued and provide people with opportunities the might not otherwise have. It may well have had some funding form somewhere -in fact a quick google and it look like ERDF was involved with various partners
In reply to Bobling:
I work closely with our national park and I've also been involved in a very similar situation where a landowner has put up new arrows directing walkers around the perimeter of his property whilst not directly obstructing the unsigned, and definitive / legal route
which cuts directly across his property.
I've been in touch with our highways department twice and have received exactly the same advice from our local department and the county headquarters.
The replies can be summarised as follows:-
1. A footpath/highway cannot be extinguished easily by non use and it certainly cannot be done by an individual whose property it crosses without a lot of legal costs. It must be a deliberate action and cannot happen by default non use.
2. It is his property and if he wishes to invite walkers/cyclists/riders etc., across other bits of his property he can do.
3. There is no general legal requirement for the highways department to sign footpaths/minor roads/tracks etc., or carry out any unecessary surface maintenance,
4. "As long as Mr XX does not block the original route across his property we are not unduly bothered and cannot take action"
I work closely with our national park and I've also been involved in a very similar situation where a landowner has put up new arrows directing walkers around the perimeter of his property whilst not directly obstructing the unsigned, and definitive / legal route
which cuts directly across his property.
I've been in touch with our highways department twice and have received exactly the same advice from our local department and the county headquarters.
The replies can be summarised as follows:-
1. A footpath/highway cannot be extinguished easily by non use and it certainly cannot be done by an individual whose property it crosses without a lot of legal costs. It must be a deliberate action and cannot happen by default non use.
2. It is his property and if he wishes to invite walkers/cyclists/riders etc., across other bits of his property he can do.
3. There is no general legal requirement for the highways department to sign footpaths/minor roads/tracks etc., or carry out any unecessary surface maintenance,
4. "As long as Mr XX does not block the original route across his property we are not unduly bothered and cannot take action"
In reply to Dave Perry:
The path has to be usable by its designated users ie walkers for footpaths (and authorities do have a duty sign from roads) but the unusable/passable boundary can be a fuzzy one - and even fuzzier when there's no money
The path has to be usable by its designated users ie walkers for footpaths (and authorities do have a duty sign from roads) but the unusable/passable boundary can be a fuzzy one - and even fuzzier when there's no money
In reply to Bobling:
The path network was originally created to enable local people to get to work, not as leisure routes. Modern farmyards can be dangerous places with a lot of large machinery or large animals moving about. In many cases it makes a lot of sense for both the farmer and walkers to have a sensible and safe detour. Whilst it may be "only" permissive, the farmer is unlikely to withdraw it since that would only lead to people walking through his yard again.
There are situations where paths are blocked or unavailable with no alternative route and it seems to me that these are where efforts should be directed, rather than trying to insist on a PROW which has only a historic purpose and for which a more suitable alternative has been provided.
The path network was originally created to enable local people to get to work, not as leisure routes. Modern farmyards can be dangerous places with a lot of large machinery or large animals moving about. In many cases it makes a lot of sense for both the farmer and walkers to have a sensible and safe detour. Whilst it may be "only" permissive, the farmer is unlikely to withdraw it since that would only lead to people walking through his yard again.
There are situations where paths are blocked or unavailable with no alternative route and it seems to me that these are where efforts should be directed, rather than trying to insist on a PROW which has only a historic purpose and for which a more suitable alternative has been provided.
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...