Is this legal?

AShetlandBitMeOnce said:
Someone tried this last winter, and they shut it until it dried out as it was too dangerous, which upset many as its the only link to good hacking for 3 of the yards up the lane (and who are less worrisome about soft tissues in legs than I, if they continue using it).


Who's website, southern water??
Click to expand...
So I used our local council website - found a report an prow issue type form.
Id be getting pictures and reporting in bulk now and in summer
 
Local council website usually has reporting options as much info/evidence possible is best, also sometimes parish council will get involved in remedial work.
 
AShetlandBitMeOnce said:
From looking at Bridleways UK, it's definitely a formal bridleway rather than just permissive use. The end 10m of it seem to be clickable separately from the first 30m, so I wonder if that makes any difference
Click to expand...
Forget Bridleways UK, probably forget your local authority’s electronic ‘overview map’ - if anything like our incompetent bug*ers - what needs establishing is the LEGAL status on the Definitive Statement and Definitive Map. You will be able to see the paper copy of this legal document at local town hall, or possibly on line if they’ve got that far updating.
It is possible that part of route is public and part permissive, which of course makes closing any route down much easier if one end ‘disappears’.
If you are going ahead anyway, makes no odds!
 
I thought about doing the same on 2 small stretches of the bridleway next to me - both bits are broken drains I think so they now just flood and develop into a very deep boggy mess.

But I thought they'd get nicked.

Landowner(s) won't do anything and Bucks CC are useless at maintaining ROW
 
Please report the issue with photographs to the Rights of Way Department of the local County Council. If you don't get a response, then contact them again, but also advise the local BHS Access Officer of the issue so that they can assist. To find your local BHS Access Officer, follow this link: https://www.bhs.org.uk/bhs-in-your-area/
 
Flag it with rights of way at the council, our neighbours penned them a lengthy email pointing out the liability if their child came off their pony and it worked!

We also had our lovely farmer neighbour scrap the top over lockdown but both owners were aware.
 
Get some free council size slabs. Stick them on a sack trolley and dump them in the mud. They will sink a bit but provide a firm base. If anyone does complain and I highly, highly doubt it then you know nothing about it. The slabs will be fine for walkers and cyclists and wont affect drainage, so everyone wins
 
I think I know the path you are talking about and I’m sure it’s been flagged to the council but they’ve not got the funds this year. Thought I saw a post on FB somewhere but can’t find it. Probably better just to keep reporting it. If you don’t put the right stuff down in the right way you could make it 10x worse.
 
Report it to the council's ROW dept along with an offer to partially-fund a solution. ie pay for cost of a lorryload of hardcore or roadplanings, if there's sufficient of you all to club together to raise such ££.
 
Sussexbythesea said:
I think I know the path you are talking about and I’m sure it’s been flagged to the council but they’ve not got the funds this year. Thought I saw a post on FB somewhere but can’t find it. Probably better just to keep reporting it. If you don’t put the right stuff down in the right way you could make it 10x worse.
Click to expand...

Ahh that's interesting, I'll have an ask at the yard
 
Meredith said:
Do you have a local BHS Bridleways Group?
Ours is very active in cooperation with the Council ROW officers at repairing and maintaining routes.
On Facebook and a website it's Long Mynd and District Bridleways Association.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but I'll have a good look and see if I can find anything!
 
blitznbobs said:
Ask your self this question, would it be legal if someone dumped half a tonne of stone on your front lawn?

No it’s not legal
Click to expand...
Of course it’s not ‘legal’.

Neither is it legal for the landowner where a public right of way exists, and the statutory local authority to allow ANY public path to fall into such disrepair it becomes dangerous and unusable for legitimate users.

Unfortunately, increasing numbers of path repairs conducted by PROW depts, their contractors, their ‘business partners’, permitted ‘friends of’ groups and volunteers are too-often ALSO substandard in current financial climate, and sometimes actually dangerous, too, even when they finally get around to conducting them.
Subsequently sueing a local authority for injury and damages isn’t easy, and should never even be necessary - had the problem not been created by that local authority’s initial failure to meet it’s legal obligation to keep the path open and safe.

Just to be clear:
If everyone lived up to their statutory obligations and legal responsibilities, there would be no question of any of this ever being considered.

(As a general principle, the public rarely have legitimate right of access across front lawns, either)
 
As stated above get in touch with the Local County Council rights of Way Department and your local BHS Access Officer who will be able to provide funding to improve this path. I would suggest using Flexipave which is a bound rubber-crumb surface. This surface is non-slip to shod and un-shod horses, is porous, so less slippery in icy conditions and well-draining, and it is a flexible surface with an element of give., which helps reduce impacts on joints – both horses and walkers.
 
Exasperated said:
Of course it’s not ‘legal’.

Neither is it legal for the landowner where a public right of way exists, and the statutory local authority to allow ANY public path to fall into such disrepair it becomes dangerous and unusable for legitimate users.

Unfortunately, increasing numbers of path repairs conducted by PROW depts, their contractors, their ‘business partners’, permitted ‘friends of’ groups and volunteers are too-often ALSO substandard in current financial climate, and sometimes actually dangerous, too, even when they finally get around to conducting them.
Subsequently sueing a local authority for injury and damages isn’t easy, and should never even be necessary - had the problem not been created by that local authority’s initial failure to meet it’s legal obligation to keep the path open and safe.

Just to be clear:
If everyone lived up to their statutory obligations and legal responsibilities, there would be no question of any of this ever being considered.

(As a general principle, the public rarely have legitimate right of access across front lawns, either)
Click to expand...
It depends what is classed as disrepair .. I have no idea about the path people are talking about but mud is allowed and to be expected on a right away across fields/ land. They do not need to be ‘made ‘ ways just that a person is a right to cross there.

If a paths course is lost through rivers changing course or other natural phenomenon then the path is lost … it’s not straight forward law and what is acceptable is not a very high standard in afraid AND dumping stuff is illegal where as not maintaining is unlawful there is a big difference
 
Could you get a local tree surgeon to dump their wood chip at yours and barrow that up? It's a natural thing, it might not be noticed and will break down (eventually) Not sure it would work now, but maybe if you started when it was drier?
 
JenJ said:
Just bear in mind that mud control mats can be slippery. And if a member of the public slipped (or claimed to have slipped) on them then there may be trouble...

(Sorry to be the voice of doom :()
Click to expand...
Would the playground type mats work better? My old yard has them as a base in a couple of stables directly onto soil and they have stood the test of time without being slippery
 
PeterNatt said:
As stated above get in touch with the Local County Council rights of Way Department and your local BHS Access Officer who will be able to provide funding to improve this path. I would suggest using Flexipave which is a bound rubber-crumb surface. This surface is non-slip to shod and un-shod horses, is porous, so less slippery in icy conditions and well-draining, and it is a flexible surface with an element of give., which helps reduce impacts on joints – both horses and walkers.
Click to expand...
This! Except I'd qualify it slightly that the BHS 'may' be able to provide funding... there is obviously an application process and requirements to meet - don't want to give the impression that it's an absolute given that they can fund repair of every route in the land! But definitely agree that going about it properly and for lasting repair is the best approach!
 
blitznbobs said:
It depends what is classed as disrepair .. I have no idea about the path people are talking about but mud is allowed and to be expected on a right away across fields/ land. They do not need to be ‘made ‘ ways just that a person is a right to cross there.

If a paths course is lost through rivers changing course or other natural phenomenon then the path is lost … it’s not straight forward law and what is acceptable is not a very high standard in afraid AND dumping stuff is illegal where as not maintaining is unlawful there is a big difference
Click to expand...
OP stated the short stretch (c.10 feet distance) of mud is so deep (presumably during autumn / winter), the local authority CLOSED the route as dangerous to use, rather than repair it.
That would be a local authority judgement, and as you say, their standards are not necessarily high, so mud here probably is excessive and prohibitive for safe use.
Closure apparently meant re routing all horses, cyclists & walkers onto a main road.
Would that be more, or less, ‘safe’, I wonder?
As a general principle, ‘unmade’ surfaces are far more pleasant for most users, and often safer in winter, because concrete, tarmac AND flexipave (see other recommendation) all become very slippery with frost. Footpaths are rarely gritted by local authorities, in rural locations it’s difficult to get roads gritted, never mind perceived recreational routes.
On steep gradients, all these made surfaces can be far more hazardous than unmade surfaces, for all users.
Flexipave porous surface can also fill with exceptionally slippery moss when sited in semi shade, necessitating very regular herbicide. And flexipave can completely ‘wash out’ in downpours, so although useful in some situations (and possibly might work for the OP), it is expensive to lay and not the panacea that manufacturers claim.
 
Exasperated said:
OP stated the short stretch (c.10 feet distance) of mud is so deep (presumably during autumn / winter), the local authority CLOSED the route as dangerous to use, rather than repair it.
That would be a local authority judgement, and as you say, their standards are not necessarily high, so mud here probably is excessive and prohibitive for safe use.
Closure apparently meant re routing all horses, cyclists & walkers onto a main road.
Would that be more, or less, ‘safe’, I wonder?
As a general principle, ‘unmade’ surfaces are far more pleasant for most users, and often safer in winter, because concrete, tarmac AND flexipave (see other recommendation) all become very slippery with frost. Footpaths are rarely gritted by local authorities, in rural locations it’s difficult to get roads gritted, never mind perceived recreational routes.
On steep gradients, all these made surfaces can be far more hazardous than unmade surfaces, for all users.
Flexipave porous surface can also fill with exceptionally slippery moss when sited in semi shade, necessitating very regular herbicide. And flexipave can completely ‘wash out’ in downpours, so although useful in some situations (and possibly might work for the OP), it is expensive to lay and not the panacea that manufacturers claim.
Click to expand...
Well if they have closed it the likelihood of it reopening is bugger all - the one near us it has been 8 years now … I doubt it can or will ever be made safe but taking matters into own hands is unlikely to change that - councils work at a beyond snails pace (I mean really ridiculously slowly ) so even if you did take matters into your own hands (and they didn’t get pissy about it )it being reinstated will be an incredibly slow thing
 
We have the opposite problem with everything getting tarmaced
Exasperated said:
OP stated the short stretch (c.10 feet distance) of mud is so deep (presumably during autumn / winter), the local authority CLOSED the route as dangerous to use, rather than repair it.
That would be a local authority judgement, and as you say, their standards are not necessarily high, so mud here probably is excessive and prohibitive for safe use.
Closure apparently meant re routing all horses, cyclists & walkers onto a main road.
Would that be more, or less, ‘safe’, I wonder?
As a general principle, ‘unmade’ surfaces are far more pleasant for most users, and often safer in winter, because concrete, tarmac AND flexipave (see other recommendation) all become very slippery with frost. Footpaths are rarely gritted by local authorities, in rural locations it’s difficult to get roads gritted, never mind perceived recreational routes.
On steep gradients, all these made surfaces can be far more hazardous than unmade surfaces, for all users.
Flexipave porous surface can also fill with exceptionally slippery moss when sited in semi shade, necessitating very regular herbicide. And flexipave can completely ‘wash out’ in downpours, so although useful in some situations (and possibly might work for the OP), it is expensive to lay and not the panacea that manufacturers claim.
Click to expand...
 
Exasperated said:
OP stated the short stretch (c.10 feet distance) of mud is so deep (presumably during autumn / winter), the local authority CLOSED the route as dangerous to use, rather than repair it.
That would be a local authority judgement, and as you say, their standards are not necessarily high, so mud here probably is excessive and prohibitive for safe use.
Closure apparently meant re routing all horses, cyclists & walkers onto a main road.
Would that be more, or less, ‘safe’, I wonder?
As a general principle, ‘unmade’ surfaces are far more pleasant for most users, and often safer in winter, because concrete, tarmac AND flexipave (see other recommendation) all become very slippery with frost. Footpaths are rarely gritted by local authorities, in rural locations it’s difficult to get roads gritted, never mind perceived recreational routes.
On steep gradients, all these made surfaces can be far more hazardous than unmade surfaces, for all users.
Flexipave porous surface can also fill with exceptionally slippery moss when sited in semi shade, necessitating very regular herbicide. And flexipave can completely ‘wash out’ in downpours, so although useful in some situations (and possibly might work for the OP), it is expensive to lay and not the panacea that manufacturers claim.
Click to expand...

But if slabs were put down they would soon be covered in a layer of mud, it would just be a thinner layer of mud
 
We had to complain to our local council when a part of a local bridle way became unsafe

Unsafe is the term you need to use and get everyone at your yard to complain as walkers, cyclists and riders

They did come and fix the issue but it took a bit of chasing
 
Lucky788 said:
We had to complain to our local council when a part of a local bridle way became unsafe

Unsafe is the term you need to use and get everyone at your yard to complain as walkers, cyclists and riders

They did come and fix the issue but it took a bit of chasing
Click to expand...
This might work if the land belongs to the council … if it belongs to a private individual it is much more complicated. Even if the council has the funds to ‘make’ the track properly they must get the landlords permission to do so… this is fraught with issues for the land lord so is unlikely to be agreed to easily. (Eg once the track is made - eg hardcored) the landlord must now ask the councils permission to dig it up to cross with wiring, drains, water pipes etc. which can take literally years to be granted. So any landlord with any concept of the regulations is almost bound to say ‘no’ … then it will end up in a legal case which can take years to even get to court - even if the council has the will to take it to court… So the practicality is that the track stays shut for years while this is tussled out or more commonly permanently shut.(this also suits a lot of landlords who get sick of walkers etc dropping litter on their land) This is why saying something is ‘unsafe’ is actually akin to saying ‘shut this path please ‘ and must be done knowing the full situation.
 
The land belongs to Southern Water - they closed it last year during the winter due to it being unsafe to pass but ir prompty reopened once dried out (or everyone just continued using it, I am unsure as Dex wasn't backed then, it's heavy for horse traffic not so much walkers/dogs), the re route is back the way you came which is a 25 min hack, hours walk. Going onto the main road would not be safe as its a national speed limit, two lane and on a blind 90 degree bend, plus every 4th vehicle is an artic lorry.
 
ester said:
We have the opposite problem with everything getting tarmaced
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s a very unpleasant solution - actively dangerous for all users when frosty / icy - which local authorities’ PFI contractors / business partners like to see as a permanent answer to maintenance.
It isn’t of course, such tarmac isn’t laid to anything like highway spec, and great chunks gouge out courtesy of increasingly-common deluges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top