Is this legal?

Re post 58:
OP already stated the route was closed by local authority for safety reasons, due to excessive mud (on an extremely short section).
Whoever is the landowner; S.Water and / or local authority; along with PROW took a decision to close rather than repair.
Such decision might reflect a ‘permissive status’ (where closure is very easy, but OP would have to check with local Definitive Statement)- or quite simply low priority / funds, general disinclination by the authority.
Clearly the route has become re opened for users following improved weather, but has evidently succumbed again to winter extremes.

Permanently closing public rights of way, including where they cross privately owned land, is not as straightforward as post 58 suggests, or every livestock farmer in Britain would find an excuse to do so immediately.
Byways & Bridleways Trust and Ramblers Association will provide very helpful advice.

Forcing the local authority’s hand into achieving safe useability will be helped if affected users make an enormous amount of fuss about the value of maintaining the particular route - full local (and possibly national publicity), letters and emails to media, petition with sufficient numbers that the Council Chamber has to hear a presentation, Councillors, MP, relevant user groups including disabled and minority group representatives, safety campaigners, mental health campaigners - throw the kitchen sink at it, and the rest.
Will demand a great deal of time and energy, and committed local activists come into their own.

bridleways are known as ‘the most egalitarian routes’ - useable by vulnerable walkers, cyclists, disabled scooters and horse riders, so luckily these offer considerably more public benefit than opening a mere cycle track or f.path - irrespective of whatever OP chooses to do.
 
Exasperated said:
Re post 58:
OP already stated the route was closed by local authority for safety reasons, due to excessive mud (on an extremely short section).
Whoever is the landowner; S.Water and / or local authority; along with PROW took a decision to close rather than repair.
Such decision might reflect a ‘permissive status’ (where closure is very easy, but OP would have to check with local Definitive Statement)- or quite simply low priority / funds, general disinclination by the authority.
Clearly the route has become re opened for users following improved weather, but has evidently succumbed again to winter extremes.

Permanently closing public rights of way, including where they cross privately owned land, is not as straightforward as post 58 suggests, or every livestock farmer in Britain would find an excuse to do so immediately.
Byways & Bridleways Trust and Ramblers Association will provide very helpful advice.

Forcing the local authority’s hand into achieving safe useability will be helped if affected users make an enormous amount of fuss about the value of maintaining the particular route - full local (and possibly national publicity), letters and emails to media, petition with sufficient numbers that the Council Chamber has to hear a presentation, Councillors, MP, relevant user groups including disabled and minority group representatives, safety campaigners, mental health campaigners - throw the kitchen sink at it, and the rest.
Will demand a great deal of time and energy, and committed local activists come into their own.

bridleways are known as ‘the most egalitarian routes’ - useable by vulnerable walkers, cyclists, disabled scooters and horse riders, so luckily these offer considerably more public benefit than opening a mere cycle track or f.path - irrespective of whatever OP chooses to do.
Click to expand...
It’s an official bridleway (PROW) not permissive.

Laying anything down not properly especially concrete slabs is likely to cause more issues. If they are laid on deep mud they’ll sink / tilt and when covered over with another layer of mud be an invisible trip hazard. I’ve seen unsuitable rubble laid in other areas locally and it’s worse than just mud.
 
Sussexbythesea said:
It’s an official bridleway (PROW) not permissive.

Laying anything down not properly especially concrete slabs is likely to cause more issues. If they are laid on deep mud they’ll sink / tilt and when covered over with another layer of mud be an invisible trip hazard. I’ve seen unsuitable rubble laid in other areas locally and it’s worse than just mud.
Click to expand...
Public rather than permissive?
Great start, and if important to you, could either help the OP (who didn’t suggest concrete slabs) or raise all hell with the local authority and get the route repaired for the benefit of everyone - you go girl! And good luck.
 
Exasperated said:
Public rather than permissive?
Great start, and if important to you, could either help the OP (who didn’t suggest concrete slabs) or raise all hell with the local authority and get the route repaired for the benefit of everyone - you go girl! And good luck.
Click to expand...

Could you be more patronising? Are you a man?
 
Exasperated said:
If the route is local authority owned, you should formally ask their permission (Public Rights of Way dept), because they actually have a legal obligation to keep public routes safe for use by legitimate users, and you won’t have either the perceived requisite training or liability insurance.
This will probably generate an immediate ‘no’, in case what you use might cause injury to other legit users, and because it hasn’t been through the relevant channels for consideration / safety / environmental impact, ad infinitum, plus - PROW depts very rarely have any spare man hours or money.
Equally, PROW officers regularly turn a blind eye to ad hoc solutions - which take place all over the network.
If you are CONFIDENT that you can get sufficient mud mats down there on the quiet, and that you would then be equally confident to ride your horse or bicycle or walk across them ( recognising that these activities sound impossible to safely do, currently), I’d be very inclined to get on and do it.
And I’d be equally inclined not to tell everyone what you have achieved, either.
The correct alternative is raise a formal complaint with PROW about the dangerously unusable state of the path, generate plenty of publicity using local media , emails, letters to Councillors etc, and let PROW sort it out - but do not hold your breath, it’s most unlikely to be sorted out for your use this winter, and probably go to the back of a long queue....
Good luck, the world needs far more public spirited individuals!
Click to expand...
I see your point but…
…this is why people don’t like public access on their land
- the public start claiming rights (that prevent the landowner doing what they want with their own patch.
- the public claim that you are ‘obliged to’ do x y z for them at your own cost and inconvenience
- the public hold the landlord responsible for an accident as a consequence of their own stupid fault.

If this is the public attitude, landowners will keep people off their land wherever and whenever they possibly can.
 
WrongLeg said:
I see your point but…
…this is why people don’t like public access on their land
- the public start claiming rights (that prevent the landowner doing what they want with their own patch.
- the public claim that you are ‘obliged to’ do x y z for them at your own cost and inconvenience
- the public hold the landlord responsible for an accident as a consequence of their own stupid fault.

If this is the public attitude, landowners will keep people off their land wherever and whenever they possibly can.
Click to expand...
Sigh, you may have misunderstood, but, purely from info provided by the OP:
there already is a public right of way here; which route is apparently public not permissive; thus there already exists duty of care towards legitimate users and duty to keep the route safely usable by them. That is the law of the land.
The local authority should ensure these things as part of their statutory responsibilities towards the public - whose taxes pay for local government.
This particular local authority appears particularly slack.
This case has NOTHING to do with anyone ‘claiming’ anything new from any private landlords.
Landowners have all sorts of restrictions on what ‘they can do with their own patch’ - environmental legislation, building regulation, noise and use regulation, basic practicability - to name just a few.
In relation to a public right of way across land, the ONLY stipulation is that the route is kept accessible and safely usable by the legitimate users, for as long as that route remains legally extant.
Hope that clarifies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top